Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 
in  2013 


littp://arcliive.org/details/lettertonewyorkcOOIienr 


is^ 


LETTER 


NEW- YORK  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE 


"DISCRETIONARY    POWER," 


"IT  CANNOT  BE  ENTRUSTED  TO  ANY  ONE  WITHOUT  DANGER  OF  ABUSE," 
CONSEQUENTLY  THE  NECESSITY  AND  PROPRIETY  OF  THEIR  PROMPT  IN- 
TERFERENCE TO  HAVE  THAT  "DANGEROUS  POWER"  TAKEN  BY  LAW 
FROM  THE  INSPECTOR  GENERAL  OF  POT  AND  PEARL  ASHES,  HIS  DEPItTIES, 
AND  ALL  OTHER  INSPECTORS  OF  "PROVISIONS,  PRODUCE,  OR  MERCHAN- 
DISE," WHO  MAY  BE  FOUND  TO  POSSESS  IT. 


AN  APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING 

COPIES  OF  "OFFICIAL"  COMMUNICATIONS 

MADE  TO  THE  "CONSTITUTED  AUTHORITIES,"  ON  THE   "ABUSE  OF  THAT 
POWER,"  AND  OTHER  DEFECTS  IN  THE  INSPECTION  SYSTEM, 

Which  have  been,  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
SUPPkESSED    BY   UNDUE    INFLUENCE. 


BY    ROBERT   R.    HENRY, 

Lhte  one  of  the  Inspectors  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes  for  New- York,  under  th« 
Old  System  of  LispectioD. 


NEW'YORK : 

PRIiNTEO  FOR  THE  AUTHOR. 
1830. 


34^ 


iEx  ICibrta 


SEYMOUR   DURST 


"t '  'Tort  nifUiv   ,yifn/i€r<Ui-in-  oj^  ^e  Mtmha-tans 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  hook 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

£y(cept  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


PREFACE. 

In  nine  instances  out  of  ten  the  application  for  subscrip- 
tions to  this  pamphlet  has  been  rejected  on  the  principle  that 
they  had  no  interest  in  the  question  relative  to  "  Discre- 
tionary Power ;"  on  the  contrary,  I  have  stated  that  it 
might  be  exercised  illegally,  if  not  fraudulently,  in  such  a 
variety  of  ways,  both  in  pubhc  and  private  life,  that  almost 
every  person  had  a  direct  or  indirect  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion ;  for  instance,  in  the  accuracy  of  weights  and  measures. 
I  will  quote  a  few  other  cases : 

If  comptroller  Marcy  had  submitted  the  communications 
of  the  22d  and  23d  of  October,  1828,  to  the  legislature,  the 
bill  accompanying  the  report  of  the  joint  committee  w^ould 
have  been  rejected,  and  the  fifth  section  of  Hart's  law  could 
not  have  been  palmed  on  the  members  "  not  in  the  secret" 

If  governor  Van  Buren  had  submitted  (with  his  mes- 
sage) my  "official  "  letter  and  affidavit  of  January  1st,  1829, 
the  5th  section  would  have  been  instantly  repealed,  and  there 
would  have  been  no  necessity  for  the  disgraceful  ^'journal 
entries^^  of  the  5th,  6th,  and  9th  of  February,  and  6th  and 
7th  of  April,  1829. 

Had  governor  Throop  submitted  my  communications  of 
the  31st  of  December  and  the  1st  of  January  last,  the 
seventy-sixth  section  and  others  would  have  been  amended^ 
and  inspectors  made  accountable  for  the  proceeds  of  un- 
claimed property  held  or  placed  directly  or  indirectly  in 
abeyance. 


4 

I  might  go  on  and  give  other  instances  of  the  abuse  of 
"  discretionary  power "  by  the  officers  of  the  State  and 
General  Government,  showing  "it  cannot  be  confided  to  any 
one  without  danger  of  abuse ;"  but  I  refer  to  the  documents 
in  the  Appendix,  which  furnish  them  abundantly — ^if  not,  the 
Albany  Daily  Advertiser  and  National  Democrat  (from  the 
12th  of  October,  1823,  to  the  5th  of  May  1824)  will  supply 
the  deficiency. 

ROBERT  R.  HENRY. 

New-Yorh  SepL  17,  1830. 


CONTENTS. 

Letter  to  the  Chamber  of  Commerce - • 4 

Memorial  of  19th  February,  1830,  presented  February  27,  by  the  Speaker 16 

Letter       of  19th       do.        1830,  to  the  Hon.  Speaker  Root 20 

Letter       of  20th       do.       1830,  to  the  Hon.  Peter  Gansevoort 20 

Letter       of  2d  of  March,   1830,  to  President  Jackson 22 

Letter       of  29lh       do.        1829,  to  the  Hon.  Wm.  M.  Oliver,  president  of  the  Senate    23 

Letterand  Affidavit  to  Comptroller  Marcy,  Jan.  1,  1829 24 

Comptroller's  Circulars  of  January  Sand  July  11,  1829 29,  30 

Letter  to  Comptroller  Marcy  13th  January,  1829 30 

Letter  and  Affidavit  to  Comptroller  Wright,  21st  January,  1829 32 

Report(under  185th  section)  of  24th  January,  1829,  with  letters 36 

Letter  and  Affidavit  to  Attorney  General,  February  7,  1829 40 

Letter  to  Governor  Throop,  Dec.  31, 1829 43 

Letterto  do.  Jan.    1,1830 87 

letter  and  Affidavit  to  Comptroller  Wright,  Jan.  5, 1830 88 

Letter  to  Hon.  Francis  Granger,  January  13,  1830 90 

Letter  to  Comptroller  Marcy,  Oct.  22,  1828 93 

Letter  to  Gov.  Clinton,  March  4,  1825 103 

Report  to  the  Legislature  (under  the  185th  section)  Oct.  16,  1828 106 

Report  of  the  Joint  Committee,  Oct.  30,  1828 1^5 

Extract  from  Gov.  Van  Buren's  Message,  on  "  Discretionary  Power,"  1829 116 

Extract  from  Lt.  Gov.  Throop 's       do.       on  "Lobby"  Influence,  1830 116 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  Francis  Granger,  on  "Backstairs"  Influence 117 

Extracts  from  letters  to  and  from  the  Hon.  Virgil  Maxcy,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
on  "Undue"  Influence,  alias  " Back  Stairs "  Influence 117 


LETTER 


CHAMBER    OF    COMMERCE 


OF  THfi 


CITY    OF   NEW-YORK. 


A  DRAFT  of  an  address  to  the  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  ashes,  (being- 
principally  copious  extracts  from  the  oflScial  documents  in  the  Appendix), 
was  submitted  to  a  person  not  interested,  for  the  purpose  of  getting-  his 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  "  discretionary  powers ;"  but  I  find  he  is  a  latitu- 
dinarian  in  principle,  as  he  thinks  the  suppression  of  *' emoluments"  (in 
three  official  reports  to  the  legislature  under  the  185th  section)  to  the  ag- 
gregate of  ^9387  63,  are  merely  venial  offences  ;  the  consequence  of  which 
opinion  has  been  to  induce  me  to  change  my  plan,  and  publish  the  docu- 
ments entire  in  an  Appendix  to  this  Address^ 

The  person  alluded  to  is  much  of  the  same  way  of  thinking  with  a  per- 
son 1  conversed  with  on  the  23d  of  November,  1827,  on  the  subject,  who 
remarked — "  so  that  the  scrapings  were  taken  out  of  the  ashes  he  bought 
for  shipment  or  sale,  it  was  nothing  to  him  whether  they  were  accounted 
for  on  the  copies  to  the  owners  or  not."  When  I  rather  sarcastically  asked 
— "  If  the  inspector  will  exercise  such  a  '  discretionary  power'  over  the 
scrapings,  (one-thirty-third  part  of  the  whole  ashes,  by  the  by,)  will  he 
not  be  apt,  when  opportunity  offers,  to  transfer  his  attack  on  the  more 
valuable  ashes?''  See  Counsellor  Nameless's  letter,  (in  mine  to  Governor 
Throop,)  dated  23d  November,  1823,  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  call  particular 
attention,  as  he  is  evidently  no  common  character ;  also  to  my  official 
report  relative  to  the  abuse  of  "  discretionary  power"  as  to  unclaimed 
ashes,  which  will  be  found  in  the  Journals  of  the  Assembly,  20th  October, 
1828,  pages  54,  55,  56,  57,  58,  59,60,  61,  62,  63,  but  specially  to  my  letter 
and  affidavit  (in  the  Appendix)  dated  1st  January,  1829,  on  which  and  my 
letter  of  22d  a  23d  October,  1828,  on  the  same  subject,  half  a  column  of 
Governor  Van  Buren's  message  of  5th  January,  1829,  was  solely  predi- 
cated ;  (which  fact  can  be  ascertained  by  collating  the  message  with  the 
letters  and  affidavit  in  the  Appendix)  on  the  danger  of  "  discretionary 
powers,"  which  he  justly  remarks  "  cannot  be  confided  to  any  one  without 
danger  of  abuse  ;''  and  had  Governor  Van  Buren  sent  the  communica- 
tions to  the  Legislature  as  I  specially  requested  the  Comptroller  to  have 
done  with  the  message,  (instead  of  sending  them  back  to  the  Comptroller 
for  safe  keeping)  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  for  any  of  my  sub- 
sequent reports,  memorials,  letters,  and  affidavits  being  totally  suppressed, 

2 


and  for  the  mutilation  of  others  which  the  unwise  and  impolitic  step  of  ffic* 
Governor  and  Comptroller  has  since  rendered  indispensably  necessary  to 
cover  their  derelictions  from  constitutional  and  official  duty.  Such  acta 
as  have  been  committed  are  the  natural  consequences  of  deviations  from 
the  straight  path.  Who  knows  what  the  first  deviation  from  rectitude  may 
lead  to  ?  For  examples  I  refer  to  the  Appendix,  which  will  furnish  them 
abundantly  and  of  a  very  serious  complexion,  particularly  the  "  spurious 
journal  entries,''  and  the  "specific  charg-es"ag-ainst  the  Comptroller,  Attor- 
ney General,  and  the  Clerks  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  in  the  letter  to 
Governor  Throop  of  31st  December  last,  in  consequence  of  which  it  was 
thought  advisable,  at  Albany,  to  suppress  it  totally,  although  it  contained 
other  matter  which  it  was  constitutionally  his  duty  to  make  known  instantly 
to  the  Legislature.     See  Letter  in  Appendix. 

In  order  to  show  generally  the  necessity  of  alterations  and  amendments 
to  that  chapter  of  blunders,  commonly  called  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter 
1-7,  I  refer  to  the  copies  of  suppressed  documents  in  the  Appendix,  and 
shall  confine  myself  in  this  communication  principally  to  the  danger  of 
*'  discretionary  powers,"  because  that  acted  upon  by  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce, the  sad  mistakes  made  by  the  revisers  and  the  legislature  in  the 
76th  and  other  sections,  will  be  rectified  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  will  the 
•'  spurious  journal  entries,"  mentioned  in  the  letter  to  the  Governor,  and  in 
the  memorial  and  letters  dated  19th  February  and  29th  March  last  to  the 
Speaker  and  the  President  of  the  Senate.     See  Appendix. 

I  ask  the  Chamber  respectfully,  is  there  a  stockholder  in  the  United 
States  Bank  or  the  Bank  of  New-York,  who  would  be  willing  to  entrust 
even  to  men  so  distinguished  for  probity  and  honour  as  their  presidents,. 
(Nicholas  Biddle  and  Charles  Wilkes,  Esquires,)  with  an  unlimited  dis- 
cretionary power  over  their  funds,  with  merely  an  implied  understanding- 
that  they  would  not  touch  them  illegally  ?  Not  one  of  the  stockholders,  I 
aver,  who  reflected  the  least  on  consequences,  would  be  so  imprudent  asr 
to  grant  either  of  them  such  a  dangerous  and  uncontrolled  power  over 
their  property,  which  might  tempt  them  to  speculate  with  the  money,  with 
a  full  intention  to  replace  it,  but  which  circumstances  might  render  impos- 
sible. The  same  question  I  put  to  the  holders  of  ashes,  stored  for  inspec- 
tion or  otherwise.  Are  you  willing  to  entrust  that  dangerous  power, 
(which  he  possesses,  by  the  by,  at  the  present  nroment)  over  your  property 
with  Inspector  General  Seaman,  his  deputies  Messrs.  Snow,  Brower,and 
Leonard,  and  in  fact  with  his  clerks  and  every  other  person  Mr.  Seaman^ 
may  deem  it  advisable  to  authorise  to  sign  bills  on  his  behalf?  allof  whom, 
as  the  law  now  stands,  could  then  legally  issue  bills  with  the  mystical  word 
"  duplicate"  written  on  them,  when  the  clerk  who  signs  bills  can  legally,, 
under  the  76th  section,  sell  them  himself  if  he  thinks  fit  and  propr>r,  owing' 
to  the  'sad  mistakes'  made  by  John Duer,  Esq,  in  omitting,  in  his  l  5th  sec- 
tion, the  prohibitory  words,  "  or  persons  in  the  inspectors  employ  b  ivingor 
selling  ashes,  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection,  directly  or  indirectly.  '  It  is 
scarcely  to  be  credited,  but  such  is  the  fact,  as  will  be  found  by  collating 
the  85th  and  76th  sections  with  the  14th  section  of  act  5th  April  1822.  I 
applied  to  Mr.  Duer  personally  on  the  23d  March,  1829,  and  subsequently 
to  the  constituted  authorities  at  Albany,  to  have  the  sad  mistakes  in  the 
chapter  of  blunders  (which  I  have  specifically  pointed  out  by  affidavit)  cor- 
rected, but  it  has  not  been  deemed  fit  or  proper  to  rectify  them,  as  the 
statute  book  will  show.  There  appears  to  be  an  apathy  and  inditference 
to  this  subject  which  is  inexplicable.  See  documents  **  official"  in  the 
Appendix. 

With  the  '  discretionary  power'  to  issue  'duplicate  bills',when  and  to  whom 
they  choose,  the  deputies  who  can  sign  bills,  (or  inspectors  of  the  old  dy- 
nasty if  restored  to  office,)  may  use  of  the  trust  property,  having  an  under- 
standing with  the  clerks,   foremen,  coopers,  or  labourers,  and  Inspector 


tieneral  Seaman  be  kept  profoundly  ignorant  that  any  such  fraudulent 
operations  are  going- on,  which  may  be  concealed  from  him  by  the  deputy 
and  the  clerk  or  foreman  supplying  the  place  of  those  which  may  have 
been  used,  by  purchase  or  substitution,  from  other  of  the  "  trust  ashes,"  as 
was  done  for  years  and  years  under  Ihe  old  dynasty,  with  thousands  of 
barrels,  Devereux,  Gebhart's,  and  others;  ashes  having  been  given  to  Hart, 
Thomas,  Card,  and  others  as  substitutes  for  their  ashes  which  had  been 
used,  without  consent,  under  the  "  discretionary  power,"  which  dangerous 
power  I  apprised  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  (see  my  letters  to  their  presi- 
dents in  the  Morning  Courier  of  July  or  August  1827)  on  the  13th  June, 
1826,  was  then  in  full  operation,  and  before  and  subsequently  the  consti- 
tuted authorities,  by  letters,  &c.  (the  first  dated  4th  March,  1825,  the  last 
on  the  29th  March  last),  but  strange  to  tell,  a  deaf  ear  has  been  lent  to  all 
I  have  said,  particularly  since  1st  January,  18£9,  owing  by  the  by  to  the 
deep  finesse  of  Governor  Van  Buren's  sending  back  my  oflQcial  letters 
to  the  Comptroller  to  conceal  from  the  Legislature  and  the  public  that  he 
had  borrowed  his  ideas  from  the  poor  inspector  on  the  subject  of  "  discre- 
tionary power."  Whoever  may  doubt  the  fact,  I  refer  him  to  my  letter  of 
22d  a  23d  October,  1828,  and  the  letter  and  affidavit  of  1st  January,  1829, 
copies  of  which  will  be  found  in  tlie  Appendix,  and  his  doubts  that  the 
message  was  predicated  on  them  will  be  dissipated  merely  by  collating 
them.  This  mode  of  keeping  me  down  by  suppressing  my  official  reports 
is  certainly  unfair,  to  say  the  least.  If  I  should  die  or  give  up  this  unpro- 
fitable controversy,  (which  has  ruined  me  in  pecuniary  matters)  as  I  have 
now  no  immediate  personal  interest  in  the  inspection  system,  further  than 
having  the  "  spurious  journal  entries"  rectified,  (which  is  a  mere  point  of 
honour)  the  law  will  probably  continue,  much  as  it  is,  until  some  tremen- 
dous breaches  of  trust  show  the  impolicy  of  having  lent  a  deaf  ear  to  the 
"  poor  inspector"  and  ex-inspector's  admonitions.  Temptations  to  do  wrong 
ought  never  to  be  held  out,  which  they  are  as  the  law  now  stands  in  fact 
and  truth.     See  Appendix. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  fortuitous  circumstance  of  a  letter  from  Messrs. 
De  Rham  &  Moore's  Antwerp  correspondent  of  29th  May,  1827,  pub- 
lished in  the  Morning  Courier  of  20th  July,  1827, 1  would  have  been  una- 
ble to  introduce  into  the  general  provisions  my  all  important  174th,  175th, 
and  176th  sections,  and  to  prevail  on  the  Hon.  Benjamin  F.  Butler  to  have 
the  penalty  of  the  177th  section  raised  from  ^250  to  ^2500  and  imprison- 
ment, (see  6th  and  11th  section  of  Hart's  engrossed  bill  of  14th  November, 
1828,  amended  by  Butler) ;  but  here  again,  by  another  legislative  mistake 
in  the  174th  section,  using  '  preceding'  for  my  word  '  consecutive,'  and 
the  exercise  of  another  species  of  "  discretionary  power"  by  Comptroller 
Wright  in  dispensing  with  the  filing  of  the  all  important  oath  required  by 
my  173th  section,  the  whole  inspection  law  is  virtually  rendered  a  dead 
letter,  particularly  as  the  inspector  general  and  his  deputies  can  act  as 
they  please,  that  positive  and  negative  oath  out  of  the  question,  on  which 
subject  I  refer  to  the  '  specific  charges'  and  the  concluding  paragraph  in  my 
letter  to  Governor  Throop  of  31st  December  last,  in  which  it  will  be  found 
I  mor€  than  suggest  corruption,  maugre  all  which  the  regency  thought  it 
adviseable  to  pocket  the  insulting  allusion,  and  suppress  the  letter  and  that 
ef  1st  January  last  in  which  it  was  enclosed,  rendering  the  suppression  of 
the  subsequent  letters,  &c.  to  the  speaker  and  president  of  the  senate  ne- 
■cessary,  as  a  matter  of  course.     See  copies  in  Appendix. 

Being  a  plain  matter  of  fact  man,  I  perhaps  cannot  make  myself  better 
understood  on  the  all  important  subject  of  "  discretionary  power,"  than  by 
a  case  in  point  accruing  in  my  own  business  (independently  of  those  men- 
tioned in  the  letters  and  affidavits  of  the  1st,  13th,  and  21st  January,  and 
7th  February,  1829,  in  Appendix)  and  if  altogether  they  do  not  show  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  the  absolute  necessity  of  their  prompt  interference 


8 

as  the  g-uardlans  of  the  mercantile  interests  of  this  city,  and  of  the  state 
indirectly,  the  first  moment  the  legislature  meet  to  have  the  "  discretion- 
ary power''  taken  from  inspectors  of  all  descriptions,  or  limited  in  its 
exercise,  (even  if  it  should  be  for  my  interest  not  to  act  further  in  the  bu- 
siness, as  my  children  in  Georgia  and  friends  here  think  I  have  already 
devoted  too  much  of  my  time  and  money  for  the  benefit  of  the  public), 
then  I  am  g-reatiy  mistaken  in  the  judgment  I  have  formed  of  their  sound 
mercantile  good  sense  and  discretion,  although  the  advice  does  come  from 
the  '  poor  ex-inspector;'  whose  '  advice,' when  in  office  (October  1827) 
they  found  themselves  constrained  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  their  consti- 
tuents to  seek  through  their  committee,  Jeromus  Johnson  and  James  Boyd, 
jun.  Esquires,  to  ascertain  what  amendments  were  fit  and  proper  to  have 
made  to  the  inspection  law,  and  those  which  he  did  suggest  to  the  commit- 
tee were  adopted. 

In  the  New- York  Gazette  of  July  10,  1826,  will  be  found  an  extra  no- 
tice relative  to  one  hundred  and  ninety-three  casks  of  "  unclaimed  ashes," 
then  in  my  hands,  being  the  first  official  notice  which  had  ever  appeared 
relative  to  that  species  of  property  from  an  inspecter  of  ashes  ;  which  act 
of  mine  Major  Cooper  remarked  to  Mr.  Brown,  bad  entirely  destroyed  the 
confidence  of  co-inspectors  in  me,  I  opine  because  it  disclosed  one  of  the 
illegal  items  of  the  "contingent  fund,"  and  was  an  indirect  reproach  on 
him,  Snow  &.  Bogart,  Dox  &  Stoddard,  for  neglect  of  that  duty,  under 
the  twelfth  section  of  the  act  of  February  25,  1813,  and  the  seventeenth 
section  of  act  of  Aprils,  1822.  See  journals  of  the  Assembly,  1828, 
from  54  to  63  inclusive. 

There  was  no  obligation  on  my  part,  to  be  at  the  expense  of  this  "  extra 
notice,"  but  I  thought  it  unfair  to  take  the  owners  by  surprise,  who  might  not 
notice  the  auctioneer's  advertisement  if  made  under  the  seventeenth  section, 
and  their  property  might  be  sacrificed  in  consequence  of  it.  Another 
reason  I  repeat,  was,  a  notice  of  any  kind  being  a  new  thing,  the  unclaim- 
ed ashes  having  been  sold  at  private  instead  of  public  sale,  for  glass  houses 
in  Ulster  county,  Hartford,  Coventry,  and  to  soap  boilers,  or  were  bestow- 
ed as  largesses,  to  obtain  and  retain  patronage,  and  to  such  an  amount,  that 
in  October  23,  1828,  I  made  an  indirect  overture  to  the  Comptroller,  to 
secure  to  the  state  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  thousand  dollars  for  the 
"people's  legal"  and  "equitable"  right  to  the  ashes,  or  proceeds  held  or 
placed,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  abeyance,  (which  letter  was  submitted  to 
governor  Van  Buren,  and  then  sent  back  to  the  office  instead  of  accompa- 
nying the  message,)  and  to  Comptroller  Wright,  in  June  18,  1829, 1  offer- 
ed to  find  satisfactory  security  for  fifty  thousand  dollars,  which  letter,  I 
aver,  has  also  been  withheld  from  the  last  legislature,  as  the  journals  will 
show.  The  delivery  of  the  letters  to  both  comptrollers  I  can  prove,  if  ne- 
cessary, by  the  gentlemen  who  had  taken  them  in  charge.  If  these  dis- 
cretionary acts  are  not  violations»of  constitutional  duty,  then  I  am  greatly 
mistaken.  The  consequence  of  the  extra  notice  was,  eighty-seven  casks 
of  the  ashes  were  "  legally"  claimed  by  A.  P.  Hamlin,  Esq.  (by  the  exhibi- 
tion of  original  bills,)  who  was  so  irritated  at  my  advertising,  that  he  would 
have  taken  them  out  of  my  possession,  had  I  not  shown  him  the  law  of 
1822,  which  made  the  duty  imperative  to  report  to  an  auctioneer,  but  which 
I  had  not  done  as  yet.  Mr.  Hamlin  had  been  told  by  Messrs.  Snow  & 
Cooper,  that  it  was  "  discretionary"  with  the  inspector  to  report  or  not,  and 
he  was  shown  the  twelfth  seciion  of  the  act  of  February  25,  1823,  in 
which  a  "discretion"  was  allowed  ;  but  in  consequence  of  representations 
made  to  the  legislature,  it  was  taken  from  inspectors  by  the  seventeenth 
section  of  the  act  of  April  5,  1822,  to  which,  however,  no  attention  has 
been  paid.  Mr.  Hamlin,  on  leaving  me,  remarked,  he  should  leave  his 
ashes  in  my  custody,  as  he  found  me  a  "safe  trustee,"  and  which  he  did 
until  compelled  lo  remove  them  from  No.  7,  Washington-street,  about  the 


beginning  of  May,  1827,  when  I  left  it.  Messrs.  Snow  «&  Cooper  had 
been  so  imprudent  as  to  tell  Mr.  Hamlin  and  Moses  Hart,  Esq.  of  Canada, 
that  they  had  had  ashes  for  years  and  years  on  hand,  (or  rather  the  pro- 
ceeds being-  a  perishable  article,)  but  had  never  advertised,  and  their  crim- 
inal neglect  was  instantly  apparent  to  men  of  their  intelligence,  tlie  mo- 
ment they  cast  their  eye  on  the  law.  Would  the  collector  of  this  port,  if 
it  was  found  he  had  withheld  his  notices,  had  sold  the  "unclaimed  property'* 
at  private  sale  and  pocketed  the  money,  find  any  person  to  countenance 
him  in  such  discretionary  acts?  The  residue  of  the  ashes,  one  hundred 
and  six  casks,  were  oflScially  reported  to  Martin  Hoffman  and  Sons,  the 
auctioneers,  under  the  seventeenth  section,  (see  journals  of  the  Assembly, 
1828,  page  60,)  but  were  "legally"  claimed  by  David  Stebbins,  Esq.  who, 
full  of  "ire"  at  my  supposed  "abuse  of  power,"  was  for  removing  them 
immediately,  until  I  convinced  him,  (as  I  had  done  Mr.  Hamlin,)  that  I 
had  no  occasion  to  give  the  extra  notice,  and  that  the  report  was  an  imper- 
ative duty  and  an  act  of  "  sound  discretion''  on  my  part ;  as  he  should  have 
called  once  in  eighteen  months  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  a  perisha- 
ble article,  and  whether  I  had  not  made  use  of  any  under  the  "discretiona- 
ry power,''  as  was  the  practice  of  others.  Deeming  me  a  "safe  trustee''  he 
also  left  the  ashes  in  my  possession  with  orders  to  re-inspect  them,  which 
'I  refused  to  do  until  he  sent  a  person  with  the  bills  to  ascertain  whether  the 
identical  casks  were  on  hand  and  untouched,  alias  had  not  been  used  un- 
der duplicates;  for  if  so,  the  gain  in  his  pearls,  from  the  effects  of  atmos- 
phere, would  have  been  lost  to  him,  if  their  place  had  been  supplied  by  sub- 
stitution. 

We  will  suppose  that  I  had  followed  the  example  of  the  senior  inspect- 
ors, Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper  and  Bogart  set  me,  of  withholding  both  notices, 
and  as  I  was  notoriously  the  "  poor  inspector,"  I  had  used,  (when  occasion 
required,)  a  part  of  the  whole  of  Messrs.  Hamlin,  Stebbins  and  others 
"trust  ashes,"  until  "claimed  or  demanded"  under  bills  issued  to  my 
"convenient  friends,"  with  the  "  mystical"  word  "duplicate"  written  on  it, 
which  "  barred  all  inquiry,"  as  the  "constituted  authorities"  refused  to  lim- 
it the  discretionary  power,  saying  if  abused,  complain  to  a  grand  jury,  not 
the  legislature,  because  it  is  a  violation,  not  an  evasion  of  law,  if  it  ever 
has  been  practised;  (see  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  journals  of  the 
Senate,  October  30,  1828,  page  63,)  and  when  they  called  lo  "claim  or 
demand,"  they  should  find  I  was  dead,  had  used  the  ashes  from  time  to 
time,  "  as  my  necessities  required  it,"  and  should  be  told  by  my  clerk  and 
foreman,  (who  may  have  had  a  share  in  the  "  prize,"  to  induce  them  to 
wink  at  my  illegal  and  fraudulent  acts,)  that  in  consequence  of  my  demise 
they  could  not  now  undertake  to  substitute  other  "trust  ashes,"  which 
would  be  done  if  I  was  living,  (to  cover  the  transaction,)  and  as  I  had  died 
bankrupt,  on  whom  would  the  loss  fall?  Could  Messrs.  Hamlin,  Stebbins 
and  others  trace  into  what  broker,  shipper,  or  other  purchaser's  hands, 
feven  a  bona  fide  one,)  they  had  passed  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  the  Fulton 
Bank  case,  that  "trust  ashes"  could  not  be  hypothecated  by  agents,  &c.  be- 
yond their  actual  lien,  might  apply  and  a  recovery  had  ;  but  as  I  had  taken 
special  care  to  cover  my  illegal  acts  by  having  the  ashes  re-inspected,  and 
mixed  with  others  of"  my  stock,"  (see  Conkling's  letters,)  had  used  a  "fac- 
titious mark"  in  the  "duplicate"  bill  (issued  to  my  "convenient  friend," 
under  the  "  discretionary  power"),  sav  Andrew  Jackson,  it  was  impossible 
so  that  my  friend  and  the  purchasers  were  safe.  "  Lead  us  not  into  tempt- 
ation," for  who  knows  the  consequences.  Many  a  person,  I  believe,  pass- 
es through  this  life  an  honest  man,  merely  from  the  fortuitous  circum- 
stance of  not  having  "temptation"  placed  in  his  way.  Had  "Duer's" 
seventy-sixth  section  been  in  operation  instead  of  Ephraim  (not  Truman) 
Hart's  fourteenth  section  ;  the  first  of  which  allows,  the  other  forbids 
clerks,  foremen,  &c.  buying  and  selling,    I  firmly  believe  I  would  not 


10 

now  have  been  able  to  say,  (as  I  hare  svrorn  in  my  affidavit  of  January  1» 
1829),  that  I  had  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  touched  the  "trust  ashes" 
illegally  even  for  a  "  temporary  purpose,"  for  my  necessities  at  times  were 
so  great,  that,  had  it  not  been  for  the  good  "  advice"  I  got  at  home,  "touch 
not,  handle  not  the  forbidden  thing,"  I  could  have  given  way  to  other 
advice  directly  the  reverse,  for  I  was  repeatedly  advised  to  do  as  Messrs. 
Snow,  Cooper  and  Bogart  had  always  done  with  the  "unclaimed  ashes," 
(both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection),  sell  them  under  duplicate  bills  ;  because 
with  that  contingent  fund  always  at  command,  I  could  not  compete  with 
them  ;  as  they  could  afford  to  take  ashes  free  of  storage,  pay  cartage,  make 
presents  of  coats,  hats,  pantaloons,  and  give  largesses  on  ashes  to  obtain 
and  retain  patronage,  which  I  could  not  afford  out  of  my  "legal"  income, 
and  my  ruin  would  follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  by  attempting  competi- 
tion under  such  circumstances;  (see  Conkling's  letters,  suppressed  by 
governor  Throop,  shewing  the  practice  was  in  operation  in  Snow  &  Coop- 
er's office  as  late  as  25th  September  last.) 

But  as  my  ruin  as  a  merchant  is  well  known  to  have  arisen  from 
"  breaches  of  trust"  and  "  abuses"  of  "discretionary  power,"  (of  which  I 
could  give  striking  cases  in  point,  of  both,  if  it  was  fit  or  proper),  I  lent  a 
"  deaf  ear"  to  all  such  "advice'',  as  I  knew  it  was  predicted  on  "  sinister 
motives,"  and  not  knowing  but  one  deviation  would  lead  to  another  and 
ultimately,  (having generally  forty  thousand  dollars  worth  of  "trust  prop- 
erty'' under  my  control),  to  make  a  grand  sweep  with  duplicates  issued 
under  the  baneful  "  discretionary  power,"  and  abscond  with  the  proceeds. 
This  is  not  a  fanciful  description  ;  let  the  law  stand  as  it  is,  and  ere  long  it 
•will  become  a  reality,  although  1  may  not  be  here  to  witness  it.  Preven- 
tion, I  say,  of  an  evil  is  to  be  preferred  rather  than  provide  a  remedy  for 
one.  My  invariable  rule  was  not  to  touch  the  "  trust  property"  (of  any 
description),  even  for  a  "  temporary  purpose,"  as  Messrs.  Conkling, 
Leonard,  Powers  and  Heiddy,  (who  were  in  my  employ)  knew,  although  1 
was  at  my  "  wits  ends"  from  day  to  day,  to  devise  ways  and  means  "  legal- 
ly" to  obtain  funds,  as  the  holders  of  bills  could  lawfully  keep  me  out  of 
my  fees  and  advances  for  twelve  months,  under  the  act  of  1822,  and  as 
much  longer  as  they  thought  proper,  merely  by  apprising  me,  before  the 
-expiration  of  the  year,  that  they  held  the  bills,  so  as  to  prevent  me  adver- 
tising them  as  "unclaimed."  I  could  mention  instances  of  oppression 
where  I  was  kept  out  of  my  just  dues  to  increase  my  pecuniary  difficul- 
ties, and  force  me,  if  possible,  to  abdicate. 

My  predictions  to  the  chamber,  between  June  9,  1825,  and  March  23, 
1827,  relative  to  the  "discretionary  power,''  exercised  by  Messrs.  Snow, 
Cooper,  Remsen  and  Durment,  in  effacing  the  old,  and  substituting  new 
brands  on  ashes,  not  actually  re-inspected,  and  to  cover  the,  (what  shall 
we  call  it),  transaction,  to  cancel  the  olJ,  and  issue  new  bills,  proved  to  be 
prophetic,  as  the  advices  from  Antwerp,  Havre,  and  other  ports,  published 
in  the  Morning  Courier,  commencing  July  20,  1827,  too  conclusively 
^hew. 

I  will  now  venture  another  prediction.  Let  the  present  "  discretionary 
power,"  of  issuing  duplicate  bills,  remain  with  the  Inspector  General,  and 
every  subordinate  whom  he  may  authorize  to  "sign  bills,"  without  limita- 
tion, as  at  the  present  moment;  let  "Duer's"  plan  (see  his  eighty-fifth 
section,  adopted  word  for  word,  in  the  legislature,  seventy-sixth  section),  to 
buy  and  sell  ashes,  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  remain  unaltered  ;  leave 
to  insi)ectors  the  "old  power"  to  issue  copies  unsigned,  instead  of  requir- 
ing them  to  verify,  all  to  be  issued  by  signature  and  by  oath  when  the  ab- 
sentee has  reason  to  suppose  he  has  been  "cheated,''  (as  I  have  frequently 
proposed,  but  has  been  virtually  rejected  by  suppressing  the  reports,  me- 
morials, letters.  &c.  containing  the  overtures,)  and  mark  my  word,  al- 
though I  may  not  live  to  see  it,  that  some  tremendous  "  breaches  of  trust" 


n 

will  convince  the  holders  of  ashes,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  the 
"  constituted  authorities,"  of  the  impolicy  of  not  attending^  to  the  warnings 
of  the  "  poor  inspector";  because,  forsooth,  he  was  supposed  to  have  "sin- 
ister motives''  at  bottom,  and  was  not  acting-  on  "  purely  disinterested 
principles."  Who,  let  me  ask,  ever  does  act  without  a  motive  ?  Is  it  not 
present  or  posthumous  fame  we  are  one  and  all  looking  for  ?  Even  the  in- 
ducement to  act  a  religious  and  moral  part  here  is  with  the  hope  we  shall 
profit  by  it  hereafter.  What  nonsense,  therefore,  to  talk  about  purely 
disinterested  motives,  when  every  body  knows  the  idea  is  Utopian. 

1  now  declare  I  have  "  sinister  motives''  at  bottom  in  this  communica- 
tion, viz  :  to  avail  myself  of  "  differences  of  opinion,"  here  and  at  Albany, 
on  the  subject  of  "  discretionary  power,''  and  suppression  ;  for  without  I 
avail  myself  of  such  differences,  I  find  I  shall  never  succeed  in  my  legiti- 
mate views,  having  by  "  over  fastidious  motives"  allowed  myself  to  be 
kept  at  bay  at  Albany,  for  nearly  three  years,  by  the  by,  through  the  per- 
sonal influence  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his  political  friends. 

If  governor  Van  Buren  and  lieutenant  governor  Throop  were  severally 
asked  whether  they  did  not  suppose  that  "constitutional''  duty  required, 
that  the  communications  to  the  comptroller,  and  the  letters  to  the  execu- 
tive, of  30th  December  and  1st  January  last,  relative  to  the  abuse  of"  dis- 
cretionary power,"  and  the  sums  Mr.  Henry  offered  (on  the  22d  or  23  Oc- 
tober, 1828,  and  June  18,  1829),  to  secure  to  the  state,  for  their  "legal" 
and  equitable  right  to  the  "unclaimed''  ashes,  or  the  proceeds  held  or 
placed,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  abeyance,  should  not  have  been  laid  before 
the  legislature  of  1829  and  1830?  The  answer  undoubtedly  would  be  in 
the  affirmative,  but  that  it  was  fit  and  proper  to  exercise  a  "  discretionary 
power''  in  withholding  them,  otherwise  their  "  party  friends"  would  have 
suffered  the  consequences,  mentioned  by  Mr.  Henry  in  his  "specific 
charges,"  first,  seventh  and  eighth,  which,  as  "heads  of  the  party," it  was 
their  duty  to  prevent  if  possible.  How  far  "  constitutional''  duty  should 
give  way  to  "party  duly,''  I  am  not  casuist  enough  to  say;  but  perhaps 
the  governor  and  lieutenant  governor  being  "sophists"  in  principle  and 
practice,  may  be  able  to  show  it  would  "square"  with  the  "fitness  of 
things."  One  of  the  reasons  for  lieutenant  governor  Throop's  withhold- 
ing the  communications  to  him  from  the  legislature,  was  to  render  abor- 
tive the  intention  of  the  honourable  James  McCall,  (an  influential  gen- 
tleman of  "  the  party"),  to  make  me  Inspector  General ;  (see  his  letter  of 
August  26, 1828,  in  that  to  the  lieutenant  governor),  on  the  principle  that  I 
was  the  proper  person  to  put  in  operation  my  own  system  of  inspection, 
when  there  would  have  been  little  cause  for  complaints  against  it,  which 
now  existed  in  the  minds  of  many  ;  but  it  was  thought  differently  at  Alba- 
ny, and  as  neither  Messrs.  Snow,  Bogart,  Cooper,  Durment  and  Remsea 
could  with  any  propriety  be  appointed,  although  party  men,  Mr.  Seaman, 
an  officer  of  customs,  was  placed  at  the  "head  of  department,"  who,  it  is 
said,  (for  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  gentleman),  was  at  the  time 
of  his  nomination  and  appointment,  "profoundly  ignorant,"  both  of  the 
"  theory  and  practice"  of  inspection,  and  of  course  had  to  learn  his  "  syn- 
tax" from  the  ex-inspectors,  (his  deputies),  who  had  been  rejected  (as 
wanting  in  principle),  for  principals.  Whether  it,was  an  act  of  wisdom  on 
the  part  of  the  governor  and  senate  to  make  such  an  appointment  oa 
"  party  principles,"  time  must  determine. 

Not  the  least  responsibility  attaches  to  Inspector  General  Seaman,  and 
of  course  not  on  his  deputies,  for  any  acts  of  omission  or  commission  done 
or  suffered  to  be  done  under  the  Revised  Statute  chapter  17,  as  it  now 
stands,  which  is  shown  by  details  in  the  documents  given  in  the  Appendix, 
but  to  exhibit  it  in  a  more  compressed  shape,  I  state  (disprove  it  who  can), 
that  on  the  1st  January  next,  the  inspector  general  not  having  been  in 
office  one  year,  he  can  have  no  unclaimed  ashes  to  report  to  any  auction- 


12 

eer,  and  of  course  sections  171, 172,  173  are,  as  to  him  for  this  year,  a 
dead  letter,  as  is  also  my  174th  section  :  because,  not  having  rendered  ori- 
ginal bills  to  an  auctioneer,  he  cannot  possibly  have  any  '  duplicates'  to 
transmit  to  the  Comptroller,  and  as  the  filing  the  report  and  affidavit  re- 
quired by  the  175th  section  has,  by  the  wisdom  of  the  legislature,  been 
made  to  depend  on  the  contingency  of  his  having  '  duplicates'  to  file  with 
the  Comptroller,  he  gives  my  all  important  175th  section  the  go  by,  when 
merely  by  filing  my  oath  No.  176,  that  he  has  no  unclaimed  ashes  on  hand, 
he  avoids  the  penalty  of  the  177th  section  as  amended  by  the  11th  section 
of  act  of  14th  November,  1828. 

Responsibility. — None  attaches  to  the  inspector  general  or  his  deputies 
under  the  17th  chapter  of  the  revised  laws,  but  what  may  be  avoided  by  the 
mistake  in  the  174th  section. 

Consequences. — The  inspector  general  and  his  deputies  who  "  sign  bills 
on  his  behalf,"  may  have  done  or  sufiered  to  be  done,  every  act  forbidden^ 
(positively  and  negatively,)  or  required  by  my  175th  section,  the  sum  and 
substance  in  fact  of  every  section  from  61  to  82  inclusive,  also  of  the 
general  provisions  from  171  to  186,  and  yet  they,  one  and  all,  go  'scot 
free,'  as  the  only  oath  filed  is  that  required  by  176th  section  ;  which  is 
merely  a  disclaimer  as  to  a  particular  fact — for  instances : 

CJn  branded  ashes  from  Albany  may  have  been  passed  here  as  formerly, 
without  emptying  out  and  duly  inspecting  the  same,  agreeably  to  the  pri- 
vate marks,  contrary  to  the  64th  section  merely  by  re-weighing  them  for 
the  purpose  mentioned  in  my  letter  of  12th  June,  1829,  to  my  brother,  the 
late  John  V.  Henry,  Esq.,  copious  extracts  from  which  will  be  found  ia 
my  letter  to  Governor  Throop,  suppressed,  in  the  Appendix,  and  to  which 
I  beg  leave  to  draw  the  particular  attention  of  the  Chamber  here  and  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  in  Albany,  whose  duty  it  is  to  inquire  into  the 
reason  why  the  64th  section  is  not  attended  to;  on  which  subject  I  refer 
again  to  the  report  of  joint  committee,  Journals  of  Senate,  page  65. 

His  deputies,  clerks,  foreman,  coopers,  and  labourers,  may  have  bought 
and  sold  ashes,  consequently  ashes  purchased  by  them  in  one  ofl5ce  may 
have  been  '  sherryed'  at  another  office,  say  2d  and  3d  and  even  condemned, 
raised  to  superior  sorts,  say  even  first.  See  Richard  Farrall's  certificate 
of  24th  December,  1806,  a  copy  of  which  will  also  be  found  in  the  letter 
to  Governor  Throop  ;  also  some  curious  information  respecting  red  and 
black  D's,  and  other  '  secrets  worth  knowing,'  growing  out  of  the  no 
branding  system. 

Again  :  Ashes  may  have  been  shipped  contrary  to  the72d,  73d,  and  74ib 
section  of  the  Revised  Statute  chapter  17,  as  was  formerly  done  under  the 
10th  section  of  act  of  5th  April,  1822.  See  also  copy  of  letter  to  Gover- 
nor Throop,  suppressed,  for  some  very  interesting  information  on  that  sub- 
ject :  in  short,  I  repeat,  every  section  in  the  law  may  have  been  directly 
or  indirectly  violated,  and  both  master  and  man  go  '  scot  iree^^  merely 
from  the  legislature,  without  reflection,  having  made  the  filing  of  my  ail 
important  oath  No.  175  to  depend  on  a  contingency  which  need  never 
happen,  (filing  duplicates  with  the  Comptroller  under  the  174th  section) 
unless  the  inspector  and  his  deputies  see  '  fit  and  proper,'  as  any  unclaimed 
ashes  can  be  made  way  with,  before  the  return  day  1st  January  in  each 
year,under 'duplicate  bills,' and  that  legally  as  long,  I  repeat,  as  the  discre- 
tionary power  to  issue  such  bills,  witiiout  limitation,  remains  with  either 
the  inspector  general  or  his  deputies.     What  a  defective  law  ! !  ! 

Let  any  person  read  the  law  and  then  I  ask  emphatically — the  report 
and  oath  required  by  my  175th  section  out  of  the  question — what  binds  the 
inspectors  ?  Nothing  but  conscience,  which  too  frequently  '  kicks  the 
beam'  when  she  comes  in  competition  with  interest. 

Let  therefore  the  "  discretionary  power"  be  taken  from  the  inspector 
general  and  his  deputies,  alter  the  175th  section  so  as  to  compel  him  annu- 


13 

ally  to  j51e  that  oath  under  forfeiture  of  ofRce,  "  That  he  had  duly  ac* 
counted  with  the  owner  or  ag-ent  for  all  the  ashes  delivered  to  his  care,  as 
the  law  directs  ;  and  that  he  had  not,  by  himself  or  any  person  in  his  em- 
ploy, made  out  any  invoice,  weigh-note,  or  bill  of  inspection  of  a  later  date 
than  the  time  such  ashes  were  duly  inspected,  and  that  the  same  were 
emptied  out  of  the  cask  or  casks  and  duly  examined  at  the  date  of  every 
such  invoice,  weigh-note,  or  bill  of  inspection  ;""  which  done  and  the  '  sad 
mistakes'  in  the  76th  sections  and  others  corrected,  absentees  both  at 
home  and  abroad  are  safe,  but  not  till  then  ;  as  '  discretionary  powers,' 
Governor  Van  Buren  justly  says,  "  cannot  be  confided  to  any  one  without 
dang-er  of  abuse."  See  specified  charg-es  for  practical  illustrations  ;  also 
the  Governor's  own  acts  in  sending  back,  &c. 

It  was  'decreed,'  from  time  immemorial,  that  three  times  in  the  course  of 
eighteen  years  '  breaches  of.  trust,'  alias,  illegal  exercise  of  a  '  discretion- 
ary power'  by  public  officers,  should  come  within  my  personal  knowledge; 
and  that  in  each  case  as  a  stockholder,  a  merchant,  and  an  inspector,  I 
thought  it  fit  and  proper  to  interfere,  because  in  all  three  cases  my  interest 
was  immediately  afiected,  particularly  in  the  first  and  last.  1  refer  to  the 
cases  of  Messrs.  George  C.  Sharpe  and  R.  Clinch  of  the  New-York  State 
Bank  of  Albany  ;  of  Archibald  Clark,  Esq.  collector  of  the  port  of  St. 
Marys,  Georgia ;  and  of  Messrs.  Robert  Snow,  Samuel  Cooper,  Isaac  H. 
Bogart,  John  H.  Remsen,  William  Dumont,  Gerrit  Dox,  and  John  Stod- 
dard, inspectors  of  ashes  for  New-York  and  Albany,  and  in  neither  case 
was  my  warning  attended  to  till  the  evil  was  past  remedy, because  forsooth, 
it  was  supposed  I  was  governed  by  'sinister'  motives ;  but  in  every  case  my 
predictions  have  proven  true  by  the  issue.  The  cases  of  the  collector  aojd 
inspector  I  shall  not  touch  further,  only  that  of  '  the  clerks,'  by  whom  it  is 
said  a  loss,  beyond  their  bonds,  was  sustained  of  ^50,000,  which  would  not 
have  taken  place  had  it  not  been  for  an  imprudent  expression  of  the  cashier. 
The  facts  unfortunately  show  that  whenever  I  have  made  predictions  rela- 
tive to  the  illegal  exercise  of  '  discretionary  power,'  they  have  proved  too 
true. 

In  the  course  of  preparation  for  a  certain  trial  it  was  necessary  I  should 
make  minute  inquiries  into  the  raonied  operations  of  Mr.  Sharpe,  particu- 
larly into  his  speculations  in  "provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise,"  but 
especially  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  as  I  could  not  personally,  without 
giving  alarm  (and  for  other  reasons)  I  had  to  employ  agents  whom  neither 
he  nor  his  co-adjutors  could  suspect,  whom  I  paid  munificently,  and  conse- 
quently commanded  their  best  services.  In  the  course  of  their  inquiries 
it  was  found  that  many  clerks  had  formed  '  entangling  alliances,'  and  spent 
sums  such  as  their  incomes  would  not  admit  of,  and  it  was  not  long  before  I 
found  that  Sharpe  and  Clinch  were  playing  into  each  other's  hands, and  dup- 
ing the  cashier.  I  accordingly  called  on  the  cashier,  (the  day  can  be  made 
certain  by  interrogatories  delivered  to  Matthew  Allen,  Esq.  now  of  this 
city  on  file  in  the  clerk's  office)  and  told  Mr.  Yates  1  believed  he  was  hood- 
winked by  Sharpe  if  not  by  Chnch.  He  took  fire  at  the  suggestion,  al- 
though I  told  him  I  had  a  right  as  a  large  stockholder  to  say  what  I  had, 
however  disagreeable  to  him,  and  he  threw  out  an  idea  as  to  my  motive, 
which  induced  me  to  say  I  would  communicate  nothing  farther,  but  that 
as  soon  as  the  rules  of  the  bank  would  admit  of  it,  my  stock  should  be  sold 
out.  My  brother  wished  to  take  some  of  it,  but  I  advised  him  not,  telling 
him  the  bank  was  not  safe  with  such  clerks,  who  I  was  convinced  were  un- 
faithful, and  that  something  would  happen  to  depreciate  the  stock.  Some 
years  afterwards,  I  took  up  a  paper  at  St.  Marys,  containing  the  observa- 
tions of  Mr.  Sharpe  of  this  city,  in  the  legislature,  relative  to  State  Bank 
stock,  and  found  that  mv  predictions  were  verified,  the  clerks  having  over- 

3 


14 

drawn  under  the  "  discretionar}^  power,"  upwards  of  ^50,000.  On  my 
return  to  Albany  in  July,  li)22,  1  asked  a  person  who  knew,  if  the  frauds 
were  not  effected  by  falsifying-  balances,  which  he  said  was  the  fact.  1  then 
told  him  what  had  past,  and  that  the  loss  would  not  have  happened  if  the 
cashier  would  have  listened  to  me ;  but  he  would  not,  as  he  supposed  I  was 
acting  from  "  sinister  motives,"  and  thought  he  was  too  acute  to  be  made 
a  dupe  of;  but  the  result  proved  that  he  was  not. 

I  will  give  a  strong  case  in  point  relative  to  the  exercise  of  the  "  discre- 
tionary power"  of  substitution,  out  of  many  that  might  be  mentioned. 

Nicholas  Devereaux,  Esq.  of  Utica,  will  no  doubt  recollect  calling  at 
my  office  with  Abraham  Heddy,  in  18'25,  in  search  of  fifty  casks  of  stray 
ashes,  which  he  was  told  were  probably  in  my  hands.  It  was  upon  the 
point  of  my  tongue  to  tell  him  they  no  doubt  were  in  Hart,Thomas&; Card's 
hands  as  substitutes,  and  to  refer  him  to  my  letter  of  13th  June,  1825,  to 
the  president  of  the  Chamber,  (see  Morning  Courier  of  24th  July,  1827,) 
when  he  naturally  would  have  requested  a  sight  of  the  '  books  of  substitu- 
tion,' but  I  did  not,  as  '  sinister  motives'  would  have  been  imputed  to  me. 
Mr.  D.  told  me  of  his  own  accord,  that  if  not  satisfied  relative  to  his  ashes 
(which  actually  came  to  market  in  the  preceding  Sept.)  I  would  see  him 
again  on  the  subject  of  inspection  ;  but  that  I  knew  would  not  happen,  as 
he  would  be  '  satisfied,'  as  Mr.  Alexander  Black  had  been  the  preceding 
January  or  February,  to  whom  I  refer  for  particulars.  Mr.  Devereaux 
was,  I  have  reason  to  believe,  '  satisfied'  with  some  of  Frederick  Geb- 
hard,  Esq.'s  ashes  ;  and  when  Weeks  his  carman  called,  he  was  '  satisfied' 
with  others  (forty-six  casks)  in  lieu  of  ashes  marked  S.  Jones,  &c.  which 
could  not  be  found,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  alphabet. 

AVhat  prevents  the  Deputy  playing  the  same  game  now  as  he  did  when 
Principal?  Nothing;  nay  he  can  do  it  with  more  safety,  as  his  clerk, 
foreman,  cooper,  &c.  have  now  the  legal  right,  under  Duer's  system,  to 
buy  and  sell,  (which  they  had  not  under  the  old  system)  and  as  Mr.  Snow 
lias  the  right  to  sign  the  bills,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  write  '  duplicate,'  and 
the  bill  may  be  offered  by  either  of  his  men  to  Messrs.  Crassous,  Merle, 
Cornell,  &c.  and  neither  have  now  a  right  to  make  any  inquiry ;  but  not  so 
under  the  14th  section,  act  of  1822;  for  then  if  satisfied  the  signature  was 
genuine,  they  were  certain  the  foreman,  cooper,  clerk,  &;c.  were  acting 
fraudulently.  All  this  may  be  done  with  safety  and  the  inspector  general 
be  perfectly  innocent,  as  '  we  of  the  old  school'  know  how  the  thing  can  be 
covered,  viz.  by  exercising  the  '  discretionary  power'  of  substitution.  If 
the  public  are  willing  this  state  of  things  should  continue  so — so  be  it. 

I  beg  particular  attention  to  the  documents  in  the  Appendix  to  show 
that  when  1  have  applied  for  amendments  relative  to  the  "  discretionary 
powers"  of  substitution  and  duplicates,  &c.  I  have  been  told  by  the  execu- 
tive and  legislative  branches,  go  to  the  judiciary  ;  and  when  application 
has  been  made  to  the  latter,  I  am  told  to  go  to  the  former.  Thus  between 
the  three  brandies  I  have  been  *  kept  at  bay,'  and  such  self-evident  amend- 
ments as  requiring  the  inspector  to  certify  his  copies  by  signature,  (and  if 
necessary  by  oath)  and  the  repeal  of  the  Duer  system,  alias  taking  from 
clerks,  foremen,  coopers,  and  labourers  the  right  to  buy  and  sell,  and  above 
all,  the  limitation  of  tlie  much  to  be  dreaded  "  discretionary  power,"  has 
virtually  been  refused  me,  through  the  finesse  of  suppressing  the  reports, 
&c.  in  whole  or  in  part,  containing  the  several  overtures.  The  thing  ap- 
pears so  incredible  that  my  mere  assertion  should  not  be  taken,  and  there- 
fore it  is  indispensably  necessary  I  should  give  official  evidence  to  prove 
the  fact  to  be  so,  as  I  am  personally  known  to  so  few  of  those  whose  inte- 
rests are  in  jeopardy,  as  the  law  now  stands. 

My  object  in  making  this  communication  is,  that  should  death  or  casu- 


15 

alty  remove  me,  the  evidences  of  the  unwearied  pains,  expense,  and  trouble 
I  have  taken  to  have  the  "  Chapter  of  blunders,"  (commonly  called  the 
Revised  Statute,  chapter  17)  amended,  should  appear  ;  the  errors  in  which 
are  too  many  and  g^reat  to  admit  of  its  answering  the  purposes  of  the  public 
as  it  now  stands. 

R.  R.  HENRY. 
JSTew-York,  23d  August,  1830. 


Note — I  take  it  for  granted,  that  neither  Inspector  General  Seaman, 
his  deputies  Messrs.  Robert  Snow,  John  Brower,  Cornelius  V.  V.  Leon- 
ard, their  clerks,  foremen,  &c.  nor  ex-inspectors  Samuel  Cooper,  John  H. 
Remsen,  and  William  Dumont,  nor  thair  clerks,  foremen,  &c.  will  deny 
that  sales  of  "  trust  property"  under  "  duplicate  bills''  issued  to  brokers, 
clerks,  &c.  have  been  made  under  the  "  discretionary  power,"  and  that 
purchases  have  also  been  made  to  supply  the  places  of  ashes  taken  as  sub- 
stitutes ;  for  if  denied,  I  will  quote  specific  cases,  (giving  head-marks,  with 
the  names  of  sellers,  purchasers,  &c.)  more  than  enough  to  satisfy  the  most 
sceptical.  But  as  my  object  is  to  provide  a  remedy  against  the  abuse  of 
the  "  discretionary  power"  for  the  future,  and  as  far  as  possible  to  bury  the 
past  in  oblivion,  I  withhold  particulars  farther  than  may  be  found  in  the 
Appendix  (relating  to  the  "  old  dynasty"  of  inspectors) ;  but  the  least 
doubt  of  my  veracity  will  compel  me,  in  self-defence  to  quote  particulars, 
as  I  am  extremely  tenacious  on  that  subject,  and  can  quickly  convince 
*  doubters'  that  I  speak  with  book  in  hand. 


APPENDIX, 


Presented  February  27, 1830. 

TO   THE 

LEGISLATURE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW-YORK, 

IN    SENATE    AND    ASSEMBLY    CONVENED, 

The  memorial  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  (late  one  of  the  Inspectors  of 
Pot  and  Pearl  ashes  for  the  City  of  New-York,) 

Respectfully  sheweth,  That  on  the  24th  January,  1829,  he  for- 
warded his  report  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter 
17,  under  cover  to  the  Honourable  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  per  Wil- 
liam James,  Esq.  (which  must  have  been  delivered  on  or  about  the  26th 
January,)  which  report,  for  reasons  which  it  will  explain  (when  examined), 
it  was  found  necessary  to  suppress. 

That,  being-  satisfied  such  was  the  fact,  your  memorialist  forwarded  a 
duplicate  of  the  report,  per  mail,  (under  cover  of  a  letter  to  the  Honoura- 
ble the  President  of  the  Senate,  dated  January  31,  1829,)  giving-  him 
therewith  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  the  Speaker,  which,  (through  courtesy), 
it  was  presumed,  had,  (with  the  original  report),  miscarried,  which  dupli- 
cate report  it  will  appear  by  the  journals  of  the  Senate  of  February  4th, 
1829,  page  153,  was  received;  but  for  causes  (which  the  report  will  in 
part  explain),  it  was  found  necessary  to  suppress,  after  the  words  "  A  prac- 
tice,'' together  with  the  letter  to  the  President,  in  lieu  of  which  the  letter 
to  the  speaker,  (or  the  copy  of  it),  with  the  address  altered,  was  substitut- 
ed and  entered  on  the  journals,  so  as  to  give  the  duplicate  the  ostensible 
appearance  of  being  the  original  assertions  which  should  not  be  credited; 
of  the  report  and  letters  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk  of  the  Senate  would  not 
establish  that  fact  beyond  the  possibility  of  denial,  putting  out  of  question 
the  fact,  that  the  report  and  letter,  as  entered  in  the  journals,  cannot  be 
produced  by  the  clerk.  Should  such  transactions  meet  with  countenance 
in  any  quarter,  which  brings  the  journals  into  disrepute  directly  ? 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  from  the  journals 
of  the  senate,  153,  it  appears  that  the  said  duplicate  report  was  referred  to 
the  committee  on  manufactures,  by  whom  no  report  on  its  merits  has 
been  made,  (as  their  journals  will  shew),  which  suppression  was  indispen- 
sably necessary  to  cover  transactions  specially  referred  to  in  the  report  and 
documents  on  the  Comptroller's  executive  and  legislative  files. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  it  appears  from 
the  journal  of  the  Assembly  of  February  6,  1829,  page  389,  that  the  ori- 
ginal report  was  presented  to  the  House,  and  all  of  it  after  the  word 
'<  independently"  was  suppressed,  together  with  the  letter  to  the  speaker, 
(of  January  24,  1829),  which  it  appears  was  loaned  to  the  clerk  of  the 
Senate,  to  put  on  their  journals,  althougli  the  clerks  (of  both  houses)  state 
expressly  to  the  public,  that 


17 

"  A  communicalion  from  Robert  R.  Henry,  inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl 
ashes  for  the  city  and  county  of  New-York,  was  received  and  read,  in  thd 
words  following-,  to  wit :" 

when  the  clerk  knew  that  five  half  sheets,  containing  the  most  important 
parts  of  the  report,  and  the  entire  letter,  was  suppressed. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  from  tlie  journals 
389,  it  appears  that  theorig-inal  report  was  referred  by  the  Assembly  to  a 
select  committee,  consisting-  of  Mr.  Johnson,  Mr.  Edgerton  and  Mr.  Day- 
ton, (but  for  what  purpose  is  not  said),  one  of  whom  was  deeply  implicat- 
ed in  the  suppressed  parts  of  the  report,  as  one  of  the  joint  committee,  of 
which  the  honourable  Truman  Hart  was  chairman,  (whose  report  will  be 
found  on  the  journals  of  the  Senate,  extra  session,  October  30th,  1828, 
page  65),  and  also  as  chairman  of  the  select  committee,  whose  report  will 
be  found  in  the  journals  of  the  Assembly,  of  November  11,  1828,  page  89. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  on  the  journals 
of  the  Assembly,  for  February  9,  1829,  p.  398,  it  appears  thatMr.  Johnson, 
from  the  select  committtee,  reported, 

"  That,  in  their  opinion,  it  was  only  necessary  to  have  entered  on  the 
journals  so  much  of  said  report  as  is  contained  in  the  first  page,  and  on  the 
second  to  the  word  "  independently,"  and  that  the  residue  of  said  report 
does  not  deserve  any  further  consideration." 

Which  report  was  agreed  to  by  the  Assembly,  without  being  aware  that 
they  were  rejecting  the  "  emoluments  derived  from  his  office,"  which  the 
inspector  is  imperatively  required  to  report,  by  the  185th  Section,  (sepa- 
rately from  the  fees),  to  the  amount  of  354  y|^  dollars,  which  fact  can  be 
ascertained  merely  by  collating  the  journals  (of  the  Assembly)  with  the 
Senate's — also,  from  the  report  itself,  the  motives  for  all  which  suppressions 
will  be  apparent,  when  the  documents  in  the  hands  of  the  Comptroller, 
(and  the  executive  files),  are  examined,  which  will  shew  that  governor 
Van  Buren's  message,  on  the  danger  of  "discretionary  powers,''  was  pre- 
dicted in  communications  made  to  the  Comptroller  by  your  memorialist, 
dated  22d  and  23d  October,  1828,  and  1st  January,  1829,  specially  refer- 
red to  in  the  suppressed  parts  of  the  report.  The  reasons  why  those  docu- 
ments did  not  accompany  the  message,  will  be  ascertained  when  the  letter 
and  the  affidavit  of  the  1st  January,  1829,  are  called  for  and  read,  which 
it  is  presumed  will  be  done,  as  the  treasury  has  a  deep  interest  in  their 
contents. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  on  the  9th  Feb- 
ruary, 1829,  he  forwarded,  per  mail,  a  letter  to  the  Honorable  Speaker, 
enclosing  the  memorial  alluded  to  in  the  suppressed  parts  of  the  reports 
(to  the  Senate  and  Assembly),  all  under  cover  of  a  letter  to  the  honorable 
Mr.  Johnson,  of  the  Assembly,  open  for  his  perusal  and  delivery,  but  the 
postage  not  being  paid,  Mr.  Johnson  declined  taking  it  from  the  post-of- 
fice, but  with  his  consent  the  package  was  taken  out  by  Peter  Seton  Hen- 
ry, Esq.  and  was  handed  to  Mr.  Johnson  on  the  27th  February,  1829,  by 
whom,  (or  the  late  Speaker),  it  was  withheld  from  the  House  until  the  6th 
April  last,  when  the  following  most  extraordinary  entry  appears  on  the 
journals,  relative  to  the  memorial,  but  nothing  is  said  as  to  the  important 
letter  to  the  speaker,  which  was  totally  suppressed  for  reasons  which  tlie 
copy  in  the  communication  to  the  Governor  of  the  31st  December  last, 
will  make  apparent,  and  to  which  your  memorialist  now  specially  refers 
for  particulars. 

960. 
IN  ASSEMBLY. 

Monday,  April  6th,  1829. 

"  The  memorialof  Robert  R.  Henry,  an  Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes, 
of  the  City  of  New-York,  praying  for  certain  amendments  to  the  law  pass- 
ed November  14thl828,  entitled,  "An  act  respecting  the  Inspection  of  Pot 


18 

and  Pearl  ashes  and  the  duties  of  Inspectors  and  Auctioneers,"  was  read ; 
thereupon  ordered,  that  the  clerk  communicate  the  memorial  to  the  Sen- 
ate." !  !  ! 

And  your  memorialist  further  beg-s  leave  to  state,  that  on  the  journals 
of  the  Senate,  there  appears  the  following-  entry  relative  to  the  memorial, 
(but  not  a  word  about  the  letter),  shewing  from  the  reference  itself  (most 
conclusively)  that  something  else  besides  amendments  to  a  potash  law  was 
prayed  for,  and  which  your  memorialist  takes  it  for  granted  the  present 
legislature  will  ascertain,  as  the  interests  of  the  state  for  the  time  to  come 
are  deeply  involved,  putting  the  past  out  of  consideration. 

413. 
IN  SENATE. 

Tuesday^  April  1th,  1829. 

"  The  memorial  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  relative  to  so  much  of  the  Revised 
Statute  as  relates  to  the  inspection  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes  was  communicat- 
ed from  the  Assembly,  and  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judi- 
ciary." !  !  ! 

And  your  memorialist  respectfully  begs  leave  to  ask,  whether  in  the  le- 
gislative annals  of  this  state,  there  ever  was  such  proceedings  on  a  memo- 
rial merely  praying  for  "  certain  amendments''  to  a  potash  law,  which,  af- 
ter being  read  (by  its  title  only),  in  the  Assembly,  should  be  sent  to  the 
Senate,  where,  (instead  of  being  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee  on 
manufactures),  it  should  be  submitted  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  ?  The 
reason  for  all  this  finesse  and  management,  (also  on  the  fourth,  sixth  and 
ninth  February,  1829,)  will  be  satisfactorily  explained  merely  by  calling 
for  and  reading  the  memorial,  (which  has  also  been  suppressed),  when  of 
course  the  reports  to  which  it  is  supplementary  will  also  be  read,  all  which 
will  disclose  "  secrets  worth  knowing"  when  taken  in  connexion  with 
what  follows. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  in  the  Comercial 
Advertiser  of  the  7th  April  last,  there  appeared  a  letter  from  Colonel 
Stone's  correspondent  at  Albany,  (said  to  be  the  Hon.  Benjamin  P.  John- 
son of  the  Assembly)  which  will  throw  some  light  on  the  above  mysterious 
"  journal  entries,"  and  on  those  made  on  the  4th,  6th,  and  9th  February 
last,  to  which  they  appear  to  be  the  covers ;  but  that  point  can  be  best  de- 
termined when  the  reports,  memorial,  &c.  which  have  been  and  will  be 
referred  to  are  read. 

Letter  from  the  Hon.  Benj.  P.  Johnson  to  Col.  Stone. 

"  Albany,  Monday,  April  6. 

"A  memorial  from  Robert  R.  Henry,  inspector  of  pot  and  pearl 
ashes  was  presented  this  day  by  the  Honourable  Speaker.  He  remarked 
that  every  citizen  had  a  right  to  petition  the  legislature,  but  he  did  not 
know  how  for  he  was  bound  to  present  all  communications  enclosed  to  him. 
This  one  reflected  upon  the  conduct  of  an  honourable  member  of  the  other 
body,  and  the  House  could  determine  what  course  was  best  to  adopt  in  re- 
lation to  it.  After  a  ^ew  remarks,  Mr.  Johnson  moved  that  the  Clerk 
communicate  the  said  memorial  to  the  Senate,  which  was  done."  !  !  !  ! 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leaves  to  state,  that  on  the  1st  Janu- 
ary last  he  made  an  official  communication  to  his  Excellency  Enos  T. 
Throop,  accompanied  by  another,  dated  31st  December,  1829,  relative  to 
the  above  transactions,  and  others  immediately  connected  with  them  (before 
and  subsequently)  entitled,  "  A  communication  from  Robert  R.  Henry, 
inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  relative  to  illegal  practices  in  some,  and 
corrupt  practices  in  other  officers  of  the  government,  with  references  to 
documents  in  their  own  offices,  by  date,  &c.  for  positive  proofs,  and  show- 
ing the  necessity  for  amendments  to  the  inspection  law,"  which  official 
communications  your  memorialist  was  under  the  impression  the  Governor 


19 

would  deem  it  a  constitutional  duty  to  make  known  to  the  Legislature; 
but  sympathy  for  the  persons  directly  and  indirectly  implicated  (both  in  and 
put  of  the  Houses)  has  probably  induced  the  Governor  to  witlihold  them 
until  called  for  legislative!}',  which  should  be  done,  as  the  communications 
point  to  some  "  sad  mistakes''  made  both  by  the  revisers  and  legislature  in 
the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  (particularly  in  the  76th  section)  not  only 
as  to  ashes,  but  "  provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise"  generally,which 
cannot  bo  too  speedily  rectified  for  the  public  good  ;  some  of  which  were 
'  hinted'  at  by  Governor  Van  Buren  when  he  recommended  a  careful  re- 
vision of  the  Revised  Statutes.  The  14th  section  of  the  act  of  5th  April, 
1822,  collated  with  the  76th  section  will  show  that  conclusively. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  on  the  5th  January 
last  he  transmitted  officially  to  the  Comptroller  the  affidavit  required  by  the 
176th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  '*  general  provisions," 
with  a  letter  of  the  same  date,  in  which  I  specifically  point  out  my  own 
case  to  show  him  oflicially  and  as  trustee  vphat  a  "  worthless  thing"  the 
statute  practically  is,  because  with  the  aid  of  "  duplicate"  bills  (the  defects 
in  the  64th,  76th,  171st,  174th,  176th,  and  other  sections)  and  the  "  discre- 
tionary power"  unlimited,  (as  it  now  is)  the  inspector  or  his  deputy  can  act 
as  he  or  they  see  fit  or  proper  ;  and  for  additional  facts  to  support  the  aver- 
ment, refer  to  the  communications  mentioned  in  the  suppressed  parts  of  my 
reports,  particularly  the  letter  and  afiidavit  of  the  1st  January,  1829,  to  the 
Comptroller;  the  letter  of  1 1  th  November,  1828,  to  Lieutenant  Governor 
Pitcher  (with  the  enclosures),  but  specially  to  the  letters  to  the  Comptroller 
of  SOth  May  and  18th  June  last,  in  Avhich  the  people  in  their  corporate  (as 
well  as  private)  capacity,  have  a  deep  interest,  both  past  and  as  it  respects 
their  future  safety. 

And  your  memorialist  further  begs  leave  to  state,  that  on  the  13th  Janu- 
ary last  he  wrote  to  the  Hon.  Francis  Granger  relative  to  the  necessity  of 
instantly  amending  the  laws  regulating  the  inspection  of  "  provisions,  pro- 
duce, and  merchandise,"  on  which  subject  I  say  to  Mr.  Granger — 
"  Either  legally  or  illegally  I  got  rid  of  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  in  my  pos- 
session in  1828,  so  that  I  have  had  no  report  to  make  in  "1829  to  any  auc- 
tioneer under  the  171st  section,  of  course  I  have  had  no  duplicates  to  trans- 
mit to  the  Comptroller  under  the  174th  section  the  ''  preceding  year,"  and 
as  the  fihng  of  the  ail  important  175th  section  is  made  to  depend  on  that 
contingency,  I  give  the  oath  the  go  by  ;  and  in  order  to  escape  the  penalty 
of  the. 177th  section  (6th  and  11th  of  Hart's)  I  have  transmitted  the  affida- 
vit required  by  the  176th  to  the  Comptroller  (a  copy  of  which  and  the 
letter  I  send  herewith)  so  that  if  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  violating  the 
duties  enjoined  positively  (and  prohibited  negatively)  by  the  175th  section, 
1  go  '  scot  free,'  and  could  in  this  way,  from  year  to  year,  avoid  filing  the 
oath  175,  as  long  as  the  legislature  allows  the  inspector  the  power  to  issue 
*'  duplicates"  under  the  "  discretionary  power"  without  limitation — a 
power  which  Governor  Van  Buren  justly  remarks,  "  cannot  be  entrusted 
to  any  one  without  danger  of  abuse."  For  other  particulars  refer  to  the 
letter  and  affidavit,  which  give  ample  collateral  evidence  that  the  Revised 
Statute  is  a  "  chapter  of  blunders,"  as  the  palpable  defects  in  the  several 
sections  are  specifically  pointed  out  in  the  affidavit  in  Mr.  Granger's  hands, 
(particularly  in  the  76th  section,  the  revisers'  85th)  will  conclusively 
show,  and  consequently  the  indispensable  necessity  for  amending  them 
forthwith,  but  specially  the  12th  section  of  article  1,  relative  to  "flour  and 
meal.''  See  communications  to  the  Governor  and  Mr.  Granger  for  parti- 
culars, which  will  also  show  that  the  law  relative  to  beef,  pork,  &c.  re- 
quires modification. 

And  your  memorialist  therefore,  (for  the  reasons  given)  prays  that  the 
"  spurious  report"  and  "  letter"  entered  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Senate  on  their 
journals  153,  on  the  4th  February,  1829 ;    the  "  spurious  report''  entered 


20 

by  the  CJerk  of  the  Assembly  on  Iheir  journals  389,  on  the  6th  February, 
1829,  may  both  be  stricken  out  or  amended  by  having  the  real  reports  (and 
letters)  made  by  your  memorialist,  in  his  official  capacity,  entered  on  the 
journals;  and  which  he  asks  on  the  principle  of  common  justice.  Also, 
that  the  memorial  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  judiciary,  (Journals  of 
the  Senate  413,  of  7th  April  last)  be  submitted  to  the  judiciary  or  some 
other  appropriate  cctnmittee  with  directions  to  report  speedily  on  its  merits. 
Also,  that  the  Governor,  Comptroller,  &c.  may  be  called  on  to  submit  the 
communications  made  to  them  ;  and  that  such  amendments  may  be  made 
to  the  laws  as  the  Legislature,  in  their  wisdom  may  deem  fit  and  proper,  to 
protect  the  rights  of  the  people  of  this  state  and  absentees,  (both  at  home 
and  abroad)  for  the  time  to  come,  who,  as  the  laws  now  stand,  are  at  the 
mercy  of  inspectors  and  their  subordinates,  as  the  documents  referred  to 
will  conclusively  shew. 

And  your  memorialist  as  in  duty  bound  will  ever  pray. 

R.  R.  HENRY. 
New-York,  19th  February,  1830. 


The  Hon.  Peter  Gansevoort,  in  Assembly,  Albany. 

New- York,  20th  February,  183a» 

Dear  sir, 

I  wrote  you  on  the  11th  inst.  per  mail,  to  which  I  refer  for  particu- 
lars. Enclosed  you  have  a  letter  for  the  hon.  speaker,  (with  a  memorial) 
which  I  have  left  open  for  your  perusal  and  delivery  as  it  saves  me  the  repe- 
tition of  nearly  the  same  to  you. 

Should  it  not  b'e  presented,  a  duplicate  will  be  sent  to  the  senate,  so  that 
it  is  vain  to  attempt  to  smother  inquiry  as  heretofore,  as  I  am  a  *'  free  agent'' 
once  more,  and  will  apply  to  be  heard,  if  necessary,  by  myself  or  counsel, 
when  I  attend  personally  at  Albany,  which  I  shall  do,  life,  health,  fcc. 
granted  me  by  a  good  providence. 

The  more  suppressions  now  for  me  the  better,  as  they  are  prima  facie 
evidence  of  guilt,  and  add  additional  importance  to  the  affair.  In  great 
haste,  dear  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY. 


TJie  Hon.  Erasius  Root,  Speaker  of  the  Assembly . 

New- York,  Februajiy  19, 1830. 

Sir, 

Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  submit  the  memorial  herewith  to  the 
house  over  which  you  preside.  It  contains  matter  which  you  will  admit 
they  should  instantly  know,  to  enable  them  to  act  understandingly  on  the 
bill  relative  to  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  which  I  observe  has  been  introduced 
by  the  Hon.  G.  P.  Gansevoort.  The  memorial  I  have  drawn  with  such  a 
fastidious  regard  to  decorum,  that  not  even  the  parties  directly  or  indirect- 
ly implicated  can  complain,  and  must  admit,  that  the  averments  should  be 
inquired  into  for  their  own  honour. 


21 

On  the  subject  of  the  "  Spurious  Reports,  &,c."  (Journal  of  Senate  153, 
and  Asssembly  389,)  I  say  to  the  governor  on  the  31st  of  December  last : 
"  Happily  for  the  public,  this  affair  is  instantly  settled  by  the  clerk  of 
the  senate  producing  the  letter  and  report  as  entered  on  their  journalsj  and 
the  clerk  of  the  assembly  the  report  as  entered  on  their  journals.  If 
they  can,  I  will  be  in  an  awkward  predicament  indeed;  but  if  they  cannot, 
the  reverse  will  be  the  case.  Such  traosactions,  every  person  should  dis- 
countenance," and  I  ask,  "  what  should  the  address  on  an  official  letter 
falsified  be  called  technically  ?  for  morally  there  can  be  no  doubt." 

I  have  long-  foreseen  that  the  suppressions  (here  and  elsewhere)  would 
lead  my  opponents  to  do  acts  by  which  they  would  stand  self  convicted,  but 
I  had  no  idea  they  would  have  committed  themselves  so  absolutely  as  they 
have  done  by  the  "  Spurious  Reports,"  and  letter  imprudently  entered  on 
the  journals,  from  which,  neither  "Back  stairs"  or  "Lobby"  influence  can 
now  shield  them,  as  the  journals  cannot  be  yazood.  Happily  for  me,  there 
can  be  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  dangerous  nature  of  such  like  "journal 
entries,"  and  that  the  practice  cannot  too  soon  be  put  an  end  to,  on  ac- 
count of  its  demoralizing  tendencies,  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  present 
cases,  where  official  documents  have  been  altered  and  mutilated  to  suit  the 
purposes  of  parties  implicated.  There  appears  to  be  a  peculiar  fitness  and 
propriety  in  the  legislature  being  made  acquainted  with  the  contents  of  the 
memorial  at  this  particular  crisis,  and  because  I  understand  a  petition  is 
now  afloat  relative  to  the  inspecting  of  ashes,  growing  out  of  an  inspector 
general  (taken  from  the  custom  house)  being  appointed,  who  has  had  no 
practical  knowledge  whatsoever,  and,  consequently,  must  depend  entirely 
on  others,  whose  judgment  no  one  can  doubt,  but  whose  applications  for 
the  office  have  one  and  all  been  rejected  by  the  governor,  who  found  him- 
self constrained  by  a  sense  of  "duty,  honour,  and  conscience"  to  reject  them, 
(being  wanting  in  principle)  maugre  the  powerful  appeals  of  their  respec- 
tive friends  and  partizans,  and  their  personal  claims  as  active  party  men, 
on  which  principle,  Mr.  Seaman  was  appointed,  I  understand. 

For  the  grounds  of  the  governor's  refusals,  I  refer  to  my  communications 
to  him  and  Mr.  Granger,  dated  31st  of  December,  and  1st  and  13th  Janu- 
ary last,  in  which  you  will  find  that  the  special  reason  which  caused  the 
rejection  of  Messrs.  Snow  and  Dumont,  was  the  suppression  of  emoluments 
derived  from  their  office,  to  the  aggregate  of  ;g!73G3,6!2,  (see  also  their  reports 
on  the  journals  of  the  assembly,  186,  314  and  340)  and  that  the  same  forget- 
fulness  attaches  to  the  inspector  general  of"  flour  and  meal"  (and  all  others 
in  the  stale  save  the  poor  inspector)  as  the  journals  will  shew  to  the  amount 
of  ^2024,  (see  also  journal  of  the  senate  93)  to  cover  whose  omissions  of 
positive  duty,  the  "emoluments"  reported  by  me  ^354.50,  was  suppressed  on 
the  journals  of  the  assembly,  (but  by  mistake  not  on  the  senate's)  to  save 
the  inspector  of  "  provisions,  produce  and  merchandise"  from  exposure,  I 
refer  to  the  calculations  made  in  their  reports,  (furnished  the  governor  and 
Mr.  Granger)  which  shows  in  figures  the  sad  blunders  made  by  those  in- 
spectors, and  the  necessity  of  forthwith  amending  the  185th  section,  (and 
others)  which  result  from  the  deceptive  nature  of  the  reports  made  under 
that  section  last  session,  and  which  I  have  no  doubt  has  this  session  ;  but 
that  fact,  I  cannot  satisfactorily  ascertain  until  I  go  personally  to  Albany, 
and  also,  whether  inspectors  have  filed  my  oath  No.  176  (on  the  1st  of  Ja- 
nuary last)  exactly  conformable  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  that  section,  one 
of  which  oaths,  if  collated  with  mine,  will,  I  opine,  be  found  deficient  in 
important  particulars,  but  whether  it  has  been  accepted  I  know  not. 

As  I  must,  from  necessity,  again  become  a  dealer  (in  some  shape)  in 
"  provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise"  here,  or  in  Georgia,  I  have  now  a 
direct  and  deep  interest  (as  I  may  be  an  absentee)  in  perfecting  the  in- 
spection system  generally  (with  all  absentees  either  at  home  or  abroad)  for 
which  collector  Swartout's  inspector  general,  I  am  told,  has  already  shewa 

4 


22 

the  necessity,  even  to  friends,  and  that  other  qualifications  than  being  a 
"  party  man"  are  requisite  to  constitute  a  judge  of  the  various  qualities  of 
ashes,  which  can  only  be  acquired  by  experience  and  close  observation. 
If,  sir,  you  have  a  friend  or  relative  in  trade,  you  may  have  a  direct  interest 
in  this  question  as  their  endorser,  &-c. 

Very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

(signed)        R.  R.  HENRY. 


To  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Washington  City. 

New- York,  March  2,  1830. 

Sir, 

My  communication  to  your  excellency  of  the  16th  ult.  has,  I  find, 
been  received  by  the  member  of  congress  to  whom  I  enclosed  it  open,  for 
his  perusal,  and  he  informs  me  under  date  of  the  20th,  that  it  had  been 
transmitted  to  you  ;  consequently,  I  refer  to  it  for  particulars. 

Towards  the  close  of  it  I  proposed  to  your  excellency,  that  the  testimo- 
ny, &c.  in  Collector  Clark's  case  should  be  referred  oflBcially  to  the  attor- 
ney general — to  him  in  his  private  capacity,  with  Judge  Wayne,  or  to 
either  of  them  individually,  to  the  Georgia  representation  collectively,  or 
to  either  of  them  individually,  or  to  the  Hon.  John  Forsyth,  (Gov.  Troup 
being  absent)  either  of  whom  certifying  to  me,  upon  honour,  that  they  had 
read  the  testimony,  taken  by  the  district  attorney  of  Georgia,  in  1822  and 
1823,  and  the  other  documents  in  the  case,  and  that  I  had  failed  in  making 
good  the  requisition  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  of  the  10th  of  Novem- 
ber, 1821,  that  one  or  any  of  the  charges  made  good  would  be  suflBcient,  I 
would  acquiesce  in  silence. 

I  am  happy  to  find  that  Governor  Troup  having  satisfactorily  arranged 
his  affairs  in  Georgia,  was  on  his  way  to  Washington,  and  I  hope  has  arriv- 
ed safely  there. 

I  now  propose  to  your  excellency,  that  that  gentleman  alone,  or  united 
with  all,  or  either  of  those  I  have  named,  should  decide  on  the  case  of  Col- 
lector Clark.  Nothing  can  be  certainly  more  liberal  and  fair  on  my  part, 
than  to  submit  the  decision  to  Mr.  Clark's  personal  and  political  friends. 
All  I  am  desirous  of  is,  to  have  this  perplexing  affair  off  my  mind.  Deem- 
ing myself  right,  it  cannot  reasonably  be  expected  that  I  will  allow  myself,^ 
ia  this  country,  to  be  placed  in  the  wrong  (voluntarily)  when  I  know  the 
proofs  are  on  file  in  Washington,  to  prove  my  averments  to  be  true. 
So  much  having  been  said  in  my  former  communications  (1  st,  2d  and7th  Ju- 
ly, 29th  October,  and  16th  ult.)  relative  to  transactions  in  Albany,  &c.  1  en- 
close for  your  excellency's  informatian  a  copy  of  my  memorial  of  19th  inst. 
the  letter  to  the  hon.  speaker,  of  the  same  date,  and  of  the  letter  to  the 
Hon.  Peter  Gansevoort,  of  20th  inst.  to  whom  both  were  enclosed  open  for 
perusal  and  delivery.     With  great  respect,  I  am,  sir. 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY. 

NoTK. — Since  writing  the  foregoing,  I  have  seen  the  Albany  Argus,  No. 
1265,  for  Saturday,  27th  February,  1830,  which  contains  the  following 
"  delphic"  notice  relative  to  the  memorial  (called  a  communication)  but 
not  a  word  relative  to  the  important  letter  to  the  speaker,  the  key  to  '<sud- 
dry  other  matters,"  which  letter,  I  take  it  for  granted  has,  according  to 
custom,  been  suppressed.     As  soon  as  I  satisfactorily  ascertain  that  to  be 


23 

the  fact,  I  will  send  a  duplicate  of  the  memorial  and  letter,  with  the  '*  speci- 
fic  charg-es"  extracted  from  my  letter  to  your  excellency  of  the  16th  ult.  to 
the  president  of  the  senate,  to  be  "  laid  on  their  table"  till  called  up. 

What  should  be  thought  of  ex-speaker  Robinson,  (who  is  now  in"  the 
house,)  submitting-  to  the  first  charge  in  the  memorial,  and  also  to  that  of 
the  6th  of  April  last.  Fortunately  for  me  and  the  public,  the  journals  can- 
not be  yazood,  neither  can  Mr.  Johnson's  letter  to  Col.  Stone,  which  com- 
mits the  ex-speaker  beyond  the  possibility  of  retreat. 

"  A  communication  was  received  from  R.  R.  Henry  on  the  subject  of 
the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  'sundry  other  matters,' — laid  on 
the  table." 

Memorandum, — The  above  was  copied  from  the  Argus  into  all  the  pa 
pers  of  this  city  of  March  2,  1830,  (which  1  have  seen)  with  the  exception 
of  the  New-York  Daily  Advertiser,  who,  I  presume,  copied  from  the  Al- 
bany Daily  Advertiser,  and  which  I  give  to  show  the  deceptive  nature  of 
the  report  in  the  state  paper. 

"  A  communication  was  received  from  R.  R.  Henry,  of  New-York,  late 
an  inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  alleging  that  the  clerks  of  the  senate 
and  assembly  have  entered  on  their  respective  journals  of  the  last  year  a 
spurious  report  and  letter,  and  praying-  that  his  memorial  referred  to  the 
judiciary  committee  of  that  year  may  be  again  referred  to  that  or  some  ap- 
propriate committee,  with  directions  to  make  a  speedy  report  ;  that  the 
said  spurious  report  may  on  the  principle  of  common  justice  be  stricken 
out  of  the  journals,  or  amended  ;  and  that  the  g-overnor,  comptroller,  &c., 
may  be  called  on  to  submit  to  the  leg-islature  the  communications  made  to 
them,  setting  forth,  that  defects  exist  in  the  laws  relative  to  the  inspection 
of  pot  and  pearl  ashes ;  and  that  grievances  have  arisen  in  the  performance 
of  the  duties  of  inspection  of  that  article,  and  praying  relief  in  the  pre- 
mises— laid  on  the  table." 


[SUPPRESSED.] 

To  the  Hon.  Wm»  M,  Oliver,  President  of  the  Senate,  Albany. 

New-York,  March  29,  1829. 
Sir, 

The  foregoing  is  a  duplicate  of  my  memorial  of  the  19th  of  February 
last,  and  the  key  to  it,  in  a  letter  to  the  hon.  speaker  of  the  assembly,  (of 
the  same  date)  which  by  some  unaccountable  oversight  I  perceive  I  have 
neglected  to  request  him  to  submit  to  the  assembly  with  the  memorial. 

To  correct  this  "  sad  mistake''  of  mine  as  far  and  as  fast  as  possible,  I 
transmit  you  duplicates  of  both,  which,  please  to  have  submitted  to  the 
house  over  which  you'preside,  as  they  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  contents. 
Until  I  noticed  the  oversight,  I  could  not  satisfactorily  account  for  the 
prayer  of  my  memorial  not  being  attended  to  promptly. 

In  the  letter  to  the  speaker,  I  allude  to  a  memorial  got  up  by  the  friends 
of  four  of  the  superseded  inspectors,  (at  the  special  suggestion  of  ex-in- 
spector Snow,  as  f  stand  ready  to  prove)  to  abolish  the  office  of  inspector- 
general,  or,  in  other  words,  to  restore  four  (of  the  most  guilty)  of  us  ex- 
inspectors  again  to  office  ;  and  should  there  be  any  doubts  of  their  guilt,  the 
documents  in  the  hands  of  the  governor,  comptroller,  clerks  of  the  senate 
and  assembly,  the  Hon.  Truman  Hart,  Francis  Granger,  Norton  Maynard, 
Hayden,  Broughton,  Hazelstooe,  &c.,  will  instantly  remove  them.  ' 

I  observe  by  the  American  of  the  27th  inst.  (taken  from  a  proof  sheet  of 


24 

the  Albany  Argus  for  Thursday)  that  a  memorial  has  just  been  presented 
from  "sundry  manufacturers  and  merchants  to  abolish  the  office  of  inspector 
general  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,"  which  is  only  a  ramification  of  the  same 
influence  which  got  up  the  first  memorial. 

Let  the  communications  alluded  to  in  the  prayer  of  my  memorial  (to  the 
comptroller,  of  the  22nd  and  23d  of  October,  1828  ;  the  1st,  13th  and  24th 
January,  the  30th  of  May,  18th  of  June  1829,  and  5th  of  January  1830  ; 
to  the  governor,  of  the  31st  of  December  and  1st  of  January  last;  and  to 
the  Hon.  Francis  Granger,  of  the  13th  of  Jan.  last)  be  called  for  and  read, 
and  both  the  memorials  will  be  instantly  dismissed  by  unanimous  consent, 
without  taking  into  account  the  absolute  injustice  that  would  be  done  (by 
compliance)  to  the  inspector  general,  and  before  even  a  trial  of  my  system, 
the  office  having  been  created  at  my  suggestion  (to  the  Hon.  James  M'Call,) 
by  letter  dated  the  16th  of  October,  1827;  see  communication  to  the 
governor,  dated  31st  of  December  last,  and  the  affidavit  in  the  hands  of 
Mr.  Granger, 

Although  I  disapprove  of  the  mode  and  manner  of  the  appointment  of' 
Mr.  Seaman,  yet  his  removal  at  this  crisis  and  the  reappointment  of  the 
others  would  be  a  pubhc  misfortune,  as  the  four  ex-inspectors  should  only 
be  employed  in  subordinate  stations,  but  by  no  means  again  as  principals, 
as  they  have  abused  their  trusts,  which  the  communications  alluded  to  fur- 
nish abundantly  specific  proofs,  consequently  the  public  will  be  benefitted 
by  Mr.  Seaman  having  an  eye  over  any  of  them,  he  may  be  compelled  to 
employ  either  as  deputies,  foreman,  &c. 

As  a  contemplated  dealer  in  the  article  of  ashes,  I  deprecate  the  change. 
Let  "  Henry's  System"  have  but  a  fair  trial,  and  it  will  be  found  to  answer 
the  purposes  of  the  public,  although  it  may  not  that  of  individuals. 

J  am,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R  R,  HENRY, 


[SUPPRESSED.] 

To  William  L,  Marcy,  Esq.  Comptroller,  Albany. 

New-York.  January  1,  1829. 

Sir, 

Agreeably  to  the  requirements  of  the  174th  section  of  the  Revised 
Statute,  chapter  17,  passed  December  3,  1827, 1  transmit  to  you  officially, 
"A  duplicate"  of  every  "  invoice  of  ashes  which  have  been  delivered  by  me  to 
an  auctioneer  in  the  preceding  year"  ('1 828),  and  the  amount  received  by 
me  on  sales  from  any  auctioneer.  And  also  the  oath  required  by  the  175th 
section  from  the  inspector,  "  that  he  has  delivered  to  some  auctioneer  of 
the  city  or  county,  (mentioning  his  name),  an  invoice,  weigh  note,  or  bill 
of  inspection  of  all  unclaimed  ashes,  which  had  been  in  his  hands  one  year 
or  more,  and  that  he  has  duly  accounted  with  the  owner  or  agent  for  all 
ashes  delivered  to  his  care  as  the  law  directs,  and  that  he  has  not  by  him- 
self or  any  other  person  in  his  employ,  made  out  any  invoice,  weigh  note, 
or  bill  of  inspection  of  a  later  date  than  the  time  such  ashes  were  duly  in- 
spected, and  that  the  same  were  emptied  out  of  the  cask  or  casks,  and  du- 
ly examined,  at  the  date  of  every  invoice,  weigh  note,  or  bill  of  inspec- 
tion.'» 

As  I  have  on  two  occasions,  under  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822,  and  on  one 
occasion  under  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  exercised  what  I  deem  a 
legitimate  power,  of  issuing  "  duplicate"  bills  (on  the  mere  averment  of 
Messrs.  Woolsey,  Boyd  and  Irvin,  that  they  had  lost,  or  rather  mislaid  their 


25 

original  bills),  mentioned  in  Exhibit  No.  3,  I  deemed  conscientiously  a 
duty  to  make  it  known  otherwise.  1  could  not  swear  that  I  had  "  duly  ac- 
counted for  all  the  ashes,  as  the  law  directs'',  as  the  power  is  a  "  construc- 
tive one,"  no  where  granted  in  terms  by  law. 

I  wish  to  draw  your  particular  attention  as  official  trustee  of  the  fund 
accruing  from  "unclaimed  ashes,"  to  the  dangerous  nature  of  the  "  construc- 
tive" power  which  should  be  taken  from  inspectors,  and  that  expressly  with- 
out a  moment's  delay,  because  it  has,  for  many  years  past,  been  used  as 
one  of  the  means  to  defeat  the  known  intention  of  the  legislature  as  to  "un- 
claimed ashes,"  and  will  be  so  for  the  time  to  come,  practical  illustrations 
of  which  you  will  have  between  this  and  the  14th  instant,  as  the  report 
now  made  I  predict  will  be  the  only  one  you  will  receive  under  the  174th 
and  175th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  or  the  4th  section  of 
the  act  of  14th  November  last,  duplicate  bills  having  been  issued  to  per- 
sons who  had  no  legal  or  equitable  right  to  the  ashes,  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  rendering  the  171st  to  the  176th  section  inclusive,  and  the  1st 
section  of  the  recent  act  dead  letters,  and  to  bring  such  inspectors  un- 
der the  operation  of  the  5th  section  of  the  honorable  Truman  Hart's  law. 

That  you  may  understand  the  nature  of  the  finesse,  I  beg  leave  to  state, 
that  the  I74th,  175th  and  176th  sections  were  introduced  into  the  "general 
provisions"  by  the  honorable  James  McCall,  predicated  on  amendments 
proposed  by  me,  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  all  inspectors  to  account 
for  the  unclaimed  ashes,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection. 

Some  friend  of  the  inspector  (who  had  not  accounted),  in  order  to  coun- 
teract Mr.  McCall's  and  my  views,  introduced  the  177th  section,  allowing 
jan  inspector,  who  might  have  "qualms  of  conscience"  in  making  any  report 
or  affidavit  required  by  either  of  the  preceding  sections,  to  avoid  making 
them  by  forfeiting  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  which  every  inspector 
knows  the  sale  of  only  twelve  casks  of  the  unclaimed  ashes  under  dupli- 
cate bills,  (issued  to  a  broker,  clerk  or  other  "  convenient  friend,")  would 
enable  them  to  pay. 

Having  obtained  the  knowledge  of  this  deep  finesse,  I  proposed  in  my 
memorial  and  report  of  the  8th  and  16th  October  last,  to  have  the  penalty 
of  the  1 77th  section  altered  to  2500  dollars,  or  forfeiture  of  office,  which 
their  friend,  the  honorable  Truman  Hart,  found  "  ways  and  means"  to 
have  rejected  in  the  Senate,  and,  (as  will  be  seen  by  the  engrossed  bill 
from  the  Senate  and  printed  by  order  of  the  Assembly,  No.  3,)  I  however 
found  "  ways  and  means''  in  the  Assembly,  to  counteract  the  honorable 
Truman  Hart's  views  by  having  an  amendment  made  to  his  6lh  section, 
declaring  any  violation  of  the  171st,  174th,  175th  and  176th  section  amis- 
demeanor,  punishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  2500  dollars  and  a  year's 
imprisonment,  and  by  the  11th  section  the  revisers  were  ordered  to  amend 
the  177th  section  accordingly. 

Until  the  close  of  November,  inspectors  were  under  the  impression  that 
the  law  as  reported  by  Mr.  Hart,  had  passed  in  the  Assembly  without  al- 
terations. The  discovery,  however,  that  the  penalty  had  been  increased 
as  above,  and  the  further  discovery  since,  that  an  Inspector  General 
would  not  be  appointed,  struck  them  with  astonishment,  and  the  question 
was,  what  shall  be  done  with  the  unclaimed  ashes  on  hand  ?  as  they  have 
been  told  without  they  make  way  with  every  cask,  (within  the  sixty  days 
allowed  them  by  that  section,)  returns  must  be  made  to  both  Auctioneer 
and  Comptroller,  and  the  much  dreaded  oath,  No.  175,  must  be  taken,  to 
avoid  which  inspectors  have  admitted  claims,  which  I  am  persuaded  the 
persons  to  whom  "duplicate"  bills  have  been  issued  would  swear,  if  legally 
examined,  that  they  had  no  "  legal  or  equitable  right"  to, but  had  merely  lent 
themselves  to  accommodate  inspectors,  as  they  had  from  time  to  time  ac- 
commodated them  by  issuing  copies  of  bills  without  the  scrapings  noted, 
^nd  altering  the  brands  and  bills,  &c. 


26 

Attempts  will  be  made  to  palm  upon  you  affidavits,  under  the  176th  sec- 
tion, OQ  the  principle  that  no  ashes  remain  on  hand  "  not  claimed  by  the 
owner  within  one  year,"  for  which  purpose  the  word  "  leg-al''  has  been  declared 
by  Mr.  Hart"  unnecessary,"  enabling- inspectors  to  g-ive  Ihespiritof  the  174th 
section  the  go-by  on  the  "  lee  side,"  without  you  disappoint  them. 

I  am  persuaded,  sir,  it  only  requires  to  be  apprised  of  such  deceptive 
operations  to  induce  you  to  set  your  face  against  them,  as  it  will  be  evident 
to  you  that  your  fund  as  trustee  of  proceeds  of  "  unclaimed  articles"  must 
always  continue  unproductive  as  long"  as  inspectors  have  the  power  to  issue 
"duplicate  bills"  to  "convenient  friends,''  and  that  you  will  deem  it  a  duty 
offiicially  to  have  the  Constructive  power  taken  from  us  by  the  legislature,  and 
have  the  171st  and  176th  sections  amended,  compelling"  inspectors  to  ac- 
count with  auctioneers  for  all  ashes  as  "unclaimed,"  where  "legal"  title  is  not 
shown  by  the  exhibition  of  the  original  bills  or  receipts,  leaving  the  comp- 
troller to  judge  who  has  or  who  has  not  the  legal  or  equitable  right  to  the 
proceeds,  and  that  inspectors  and  ex-inspectors  be  called  upon  to  account 
directly  with  you,  on  oath,  for  those  already  sold  or  converted  by  them,  (at 
public  or  private  sale)  the  proceeds  of  which  the  joint  committee  say  they 
still  hold  in  abeyance. 

No  person  out  of  an  inspection  office  can  have  any  accurate  idea  of  the 
proceeds  of  "  unclaimed"  ashes,  particularly  of  those  placed  indirectly  in 
abeyance,  (and  which  should  be  in  the  treasury)  until  inspectors  and  ex- 
inspectors  are  compelled  to  make  disclosures. 

1  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant. 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes. 


[ENCLOSED.] 

Cixr  or  New-York,  ss.  Personally  apjjeared  before  me,  Robert  R. 
Henry,  one  of  the  Inspectors  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes  for  the  City  of 
JVeto-  Yorki  who  heing  duly  sworn,  deposeth  and  saith  : 

That  agreeably  to  the  17th  section  of  "  An  act  concerning  the  inspection 
of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,"  passed  5th  April  182£,  he  did,  on  or  about  the  21st 
January  1828,  officially  report  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  an  auctioneer  for  said 
city,  that  the  ashes  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  mentioned  in  Exhibit  No,  1, 
herewith,  had  not  been  "  claimed  or  demanded"  according  to  law ;  that  the 
copies  of  the  invoices  or  weigh-notes  containing  the  head-marks,  weight, 
quality,  time  of  inspection,  &c.,  are  agreeably  to  this  deponent's  books  of 
inspection ;  that  the  forty  casks  of  pearl  ashes  marked  E  D  N  and  C,  and 
A.  Babcock,  were  duly  and  legally  claimed  on  or  before  the22d  April  last, 
(the  day  appointed  for  the  sale)  by  William  Card,  Esq.  exhibiting  the 
original  bills  and  settling  for  the  charges,  consequently  no  sale  was  made 
of  them  ;  that  the  residue  seven  parcels  of  crusted  ashes  (or  scrapings)  not 
having  been  "legally"  claimed,  were  sold  at  public  auction,  at  No.33  Front- 
street,  (the  day  above  mentioned)  by  the  order  of  said  auctioneer,  from 
whom  this  deponent  afterwards  received  ^14  95,  his  fees  and  charges, 
which  the  auctioneer  was  authorized  to  pay  him  out  of  the  proceeds,  agree- 
ably to  the  1 7th  section. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies,  that  agreeably  to  the  I71st  section  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  Chapter  17,  passed  3d  December  1827,  he  did,  on 
30th  December  1828,  officially  report  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  an  auctioneer 
for  said  city,  nineteen  casks  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  mentioned  in  exhibit 
No.  2  lierewith,  which  had  not  been  claimed  according  to  law.     That  the 


27 

copies  of  the  invoices  or  weigh-notes  containing'  the  head-marks,  he  are 
agreeably  to  this  deponent's  books  of  inspection  ;  but  no  sale  having  taken 
place,  the  fees  and  charges  have  not  been  paid  by  the  auctioneer  as  a  matter 
of  course. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  saith,  that  by  the  174th  section 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  Chapter  17,  he  is  required  annually,  on  the  first 
day  of  January,  to  transmit  on  oath  to  the  comptroller,  "Aduplicate  of  every 
invoice  or  bill  of  unclaimed  articles  which,  during  the  preceding  year,  may 
have  been  delivered  to  an  auctioneer,  with  the  amount  of  fees  received  by 
him  in  the  sales  from  any  auctioneer,"  which  report  the  175th  section  im- 
peratively says  shall  be  accompanied  with  an  oath  or  affirmation  that  he 
had  delivered  to  some  auctioneer  (mentioning  his  name)  "An  invoice  weigh- 
note  or  bill  of  inspection  of  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  which  had  been  in  his 
hand  one  year  or  more,  and  that  among  other  things  that  he  had  duly  ac- 
counted with  the  owner  or  agent,  for  all  the  ashes  delivered  to  his  care,  as 
the  law  directs,"  which  requisitions  being  so  unlimited  and  imperative,  ren- 
ders it  indispensably  necessary  (in  the  opinion  of  this  deponent)  that  the 
legislature  should  know  that  a  "discretionary  power,''  (not  granted  in  terms 
by  law)  has  been  exercised  by  him  and  from  which  they  may  judge  whether 
he  has  or  has  not  transcended  the  powers  vested  in  him  by  law,  in  issuing 
"duplicate  bills"  on  the  mere  averment  of  (he  parties,  "claiming  or  demand- 
ing,'' as  owners,&c.  that  they  had  lost  or  mislaid  the  original  bills  or  receipts, 
which  implied  a  "discretionary  power'' this  deponent  verily  believes  to  be  a 
dangerous  power,  and  has  been  exercised  in  certain  cases  to  defeat  the 
rights  of  the  real  owners  and  their  representatives  and  the  people  of  this 
state  to  the  unclaimed  ashes  or  the  proceeds,  (both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspec- 
tion) under  12th  section  of  act  of  25th  February  1813,  the  17th  section  of 
act  of  5th  April  1822,  the  171st  section  of  the  Revised  Statues,  Chapter  17, 
but  particularly  under  the  recent  act  of  the  14th  November  1828,  neither 
of  which  statutes  requires  the  persons  "  claiming  or  demanding"  as  owner,  to 
show  "legal''  title,  by  the  exhibition  of  the  original  bills  or  receipts  ;  conse- 
quently, all  an  inspector  or  ex-inspector  has  had  to  do  in  case  he  has  not 
heretofore  made  his  returns  as  the  "law  directs,"  is  to  have  an  understanding, 
with  his  clerk,  foreman,  or  other  "  convenient  friend,''  to  claim  or  demand 
the  ashes  on  hand  on  giving  satisfactory  guarantees  to  indemnify  him  in 
case  the  original  vouchers  should  ever  appear ;  or  if  sold  by  a  broker,  clerk, 
&c.  to  take  an  acknowledgment  from  the  person  claiming  as  owner  for  the 
proceeds  under  the  5th  section,  being  permitted  by  said  section  to  sell  ashes 
and  pay  the  proceeds  to  the  person  claiming  as  owner,  constituting  the  in- 
spector instead  of  the  comptroller  the  judge  of  the  legality  or  equity  of  the 
claim,  contrary  to  the  wise  policy  of  all  former  laws  on  the  subjecl,  which 
forbade  the  inspector  dealing  directly  or  indirectly  in  ashes,  by  which  fines- 
ses or  evasions  of  law  the  inspector  frees  himself  from  the  necessity  of  ma- 
king a  report  to  an  auctioneer  and  comptroller  under  the  171st,  174th,  and 
175th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  1 7,  and  the  1st  and  4th  sec- 
tions of  the  act  of  14th  November  1828  ;  consequently  he  has  no  unclaimed 
ashes,  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection,  to  report  to  an  auctioneer,  nor  proceeds  to 
deposit  in  the  treasury. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  examination  of  the 
statutes  of  1813, 1822, 1827,  and  1828,  it  will  be  found  the  legislature  have 
taken  it  for  granted  that  the  party  "claiming  or  demanding"  ashes  (fit  or  unfit 
for  inspection)  or  the  proceeds,  would  be  the  "  legal''  or  bona  fide  owner ; 
consequently  they  have  not  required  the  owner  to  show  "legal''  title  of  course, 
and  have  left  the  dangerous  power  (so  open  to  abuse)  in  the  hands  of  inspectors, 
who  have  the  discretionary  right  to  insist  upon  or  dispense  with  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  original  bills  or  receipts,  which  in  fact  has  placed  and  does  place 
the  * 'trust  ashes"  at  the  command  of  the  inspector,  who  could  at  any  time  use 
them  by  issuing  "duplicate"  bills  to  a  broker  or  "convenient  friend,"  to  sell  aa 


28 

his  own,  supplying  their  place  by  substitution  when  called  for,  enabling  the 
inspector  indirectly  to  render  the  laws  relating-  to  unclaimed  ashes  a  "dead 
letter''  whenever  it  suited  his  interests  or  convenience,  or  that  of  others  both 
in  and  out  of  the  offices,  a  temptation  frequently  too  strong  to  be  resisted 
when  pressed  for  temporary  funds,  as  such  illegal  operations  may  be  carried 
on  with  perfect  safety,  by  the  exercise  of  common  discretion,  until  the  17 1st 
and  176th  sections  in  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  are  amended,  re- 
quiring the  broker  or  "confidential"  friend  to  whom  duplicates  are  issued,  to 
show  "legal"  title,  by  the  exhibitions  of  bills  or  receipts. 

And  this  deponent  further  deposeth  audsays,thatthe  only  "duplicate'' bills 
which  he  has  issued  upon  the  "averment"  of  the  parties  claiming  as  owners, 
that  they  had  lost  or  mislaid  their  original  bills  between  the  16th  August 
1824  (when  he  was  appointed  an  inspector)  and  the  date  of  this  affidavit, 
are  for  the  one  hundred  and  two  casks  of  ashes  mentioned  in  exhibit  No.  3, 
which  "discretionary  power"  this  deponent  verily  believes,  by  fair  construc- 
tion, vested  in  him  ;  and  he  further  testifies,  the  transactions  between  him 
and  Messrs.  Charles  W.  Woolsey,  &  Co.,  Boyd  &  Suydam,  and  Thomas 
Irwin,  &  Co.,  were  bona  fide  transactions;  that  there  was  not  directly  or 
indirectly  any  collusion  or  understanding  between  him  or  either  of  them 
in  issuing  "  duplicate  bills"  to  defeat  the  rights  of  the  real  owners,  or  the 
people  of  this  state,  in  the  ashes  or  the  proceeds  as  escheats,  or  to  enable  this 
deponent  to  avoid  making  the  reports  (and  affidavits)  required  from  him  by 
law  to  auctioneers  or  comptroller,  but  which  had  it  not  been  for  the  issuing 
of  "duplicate  bills"  to  the  persons  named,  he  would  have  been  compelled  to 
report  to  an  auctioneer  as  unclaimed  ashes,  when  consequently  the  comp- 
troller instead  of  himself  would  have  had  to  decide  on  their  "legal"  or  equita- 
ble claims  to  the  proceeds  under  the  statutes  then  in  operation,  which  would 
have  been  the  case  had  not  the  standing  and  character  of  the  parties  for- 
bade my  refusing  them  guarantees,  as  it  would  have  been  supposed  I  wished 
to  take  advantage  of  their  misfortunes,  and  have  the  use  of  the  proceeds 
until  their  bills  were  found,  which  could  have  been  effected  by  issuing 
duplicate  bills  to  a  broker,  &c.,  and  withholding  the  report  from  an  auc- 
tioneer, under  the  17th  section  of  act  of  1822,  and  the  171st  section  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  (in  conformity  to  the  174lli 
and  175th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17)  that  he  has  reported 
all  unclaimed  ashes  (whether  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection)  which  were  in  his' 
possession  "one  year  or  more,"  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  an  auctioneer,  as  men- 
tioned in  Exhibits  N  o.  1  and  2,  herewith,  which  this  deponent  verily  believes 
to  be  all  the  ashes  not  "legally"  claimed  by  the  production  of  original  bills 
or  receipts  with  the  exception  of  the  102  casks  mentioned  in  Exhibit  No. 
3,  for  which  "duplicate"  bills  as  above  were  issued. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies,  in  compliance  with  the  requirements 
in  the  175th  section,  "That  he  has  duly  accounted  with  the  owner  or  agent 
for  all  ashes  delivered  to  his  care  as  the  law  directs ;  and  that  he  has  not 
by  himself  or  any  person  in  his  employ,  made  out  any  invoice,  weigh-note, 
or  bill  of  inspection,  of  a  later  date  than  the  time  such  ashes  were  duly  in- 
spected, and  that  the  same  were  emptied  out  of  the  cask  or  casks  and  duly 
examined  at  the  date  of  every  such  invoice,  weigh-note,  or  bill  of  in- 
spection. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  he  has  not  by  himself 
or  any  person  in  his  employ,  ever  issued  a  copy  of  a  bill  under  the  act  of 
5th  April  1822,  (which  expired  on  30th  April  last)  without  first  noting  the 
scrapings  or  crustings  on  the  margin  of  his  inspection  book,  (the  book  kept 
by  him  for  that  purpose)  agreeably  to  the  spirit  of  the  3d  section,  and  on  the 
copy  of  the  invoice  or  weigh-note  of  the  potashes  from  which  they  were 
taken,  agreeably  to  the  5th  section  of  said  act,  neither  has  he  directly  or  in- 
directly (since  he  has  been  in  office)  used  any  ashes  as  substitutes,  (with  tlic 


29 

exception  of  one  cask  scrapings)  neither  has  he  used  the  proceeds  of  ashes 
fit  or  unfit  for  inspection  directly  or  indirectly,  (stored  with  him  for  inspec- 
tion or  otherwise)  and  that  in  all  liis  official  acts,  to  the  best  of  his  know- 
ledge and  understanding-,  he  has  conformed  to  the  spirit,  if  not  the  exact 
letter  of  the  inspection  laws. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 

Sworn  before  me  this  Ist  January,  1829, 

WASHirsGTON  M.  HUXTON, 
Commissioner,  &c. 

Forwarded  by  Mr.  Dayton,  of  the  Assembly* 


To  Robt.  R.  Henry,  Esq.,  Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 

Comptroller's  Office,  Albany,  January  8,  1829. 

Sir, 

I  understand  that  doubts  exist  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the  inspec- 
tors of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  as  to  the  statutes  now  in  force  relative  to  their 
official  duties. 

Chapter  17  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  "  of  the  regulations  of  trade  in  cer- 
tain cases,"  which  went  into  operation  on  the  first  day  of  May  last,  con- 
tains most  of  the  provisions  relative  to  the  inspection  of  ashes.  This  will 
be  found  in  article  3  and  12  of  title  2  of  this  chapter. 

There  is  another  law  passed  at  the  recent  session  of  the  legislature  on 
the  subject  now  in  force.  The  17th  chapter  has  once  been  distributed  to 
the  several  officers  to  whose  duties  it  has  relation,  and  extensively  publish- 
ed in  a  volume  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

All  are,  or  can  make  themselves,  familiar  with  its  provisions  ;  but  as  the 
statute  recently  enacted  has  only  been  published  in  the  state  paper,  I  shall 
therefore  subjoin  a  copy  to  this  letter,  and  solicit  from  inspectors  a  compli- 
ance with  its  requirements.  The  last  act  went  into  operation  on  the  day 
of  its  enactment. 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  L.MARCY. 

J\lemorandum. — It  is  scarcely  to  be  credited,  that  with  the  above  circular 
(with  the  act  of  November'  14,  1828  subjoined)  my  answer  to  Comptroller 
Marcy,  of  January  13,  1829,  my  letter  to  him  of  October  22  and  23,  1828, 
the  letter  and  affidavit  of  January  1,  1829,  and  my  letter  and  affidavit 
dated  the  2 1st  day  of  January,  1829,  (delivered  by  Henry  Yates,  esq.) 
to  Comptroller  Wright  himself  all  before  him,  no  doubt,  that  he  should 
have  the  hardihood  to  sit  down  and  deliberately  write  the  following  circu- 
lar. The  comptroller  had  the  grace  not  to  send  me  one,  and  it  was  by  ac- 
cident I  discovered  that  my  coadjutors  in  office,  (and  others)  had  received 
circulars,  as  they  kept  it  a  profound  secret  from  me,  knowing  full  well, 
that  instead  of  a  circular  it  was  the  comptroller's  imperative  duty  to  re- 
port them,  under  the  177th  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17  to 
District  Attorneys,  on  which  subject  I  refer  specially  to  what  I  say  to 
Comptroller  Wright  in  my  letter  of  January  £1,  1829,  showing,  that  on 
that  day,  inspectors  of  "  provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise"  were  ap- 
prised of  Comptroller  Marcy's  circular,  and  the  alteration  of  the  penalty 
in  the  177th  section  made  by  the  11th  section  of  act  of  November  14,1828. 
I  run  no  risk  in  saying,  that  the  warmest  friend  of  Comptroller  Wright 
will  not  excuse  him  when  all  the  facts  are  known. 


30 


[CIRCULAR.] 

Comptroller's  Office,  Albany,  July  11,  1829. 

Sir, 

The  following-  law,  passed  at  the  last  November  session,  not  having^ 
been  circulated  except  in  the  ordinary  manner  of  circulating  the  laws, 
I  have  thought  proper  to  have  copies  sent  to  the  officers  whose  duties  it  im- 
portantly concerns,  that  they  may  not  neglect  its  provisions  from  an  igno- 
rance of  them.  A  careful  attention  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  will-  be 
important  to  inspectors  and  auctioneers,  as  the  most  rigid  adherence  will  be 
required. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

SILAS  WRIGHT,  Jun. 


[SUPPRESSED.] 
To  Wm,  L.  Marcy,  Comptroller  of  the  State,  Albany^ 

New-York,  January  13,  1829. 

Sir, 

I  was  yesterday  favoured  with  your  circular  to  inspectors  of  pot 
and  pearl  ashes,  relative  to  the  returns  required  under  the  "General  Pro- 
visions''in  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  passed  December  3,  1827, 
and  to  which  you  subjoin  a  copy  of 

"  An  act  respecting  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  the  du4ies 
of  inspectors  and  auctioneers,"  passed  November  14,  1828. 

As  early  as  the  22d  of  November  last,  I  had  read  the  law  (of  14th),  pre- 
vious to  which  I  had  prepared  my  report  to  an  auctioneer  under  the  171st 
section,  but  with  the  hope  that  the  owners  would  appear  and  claim  before 
the  1st  of  January,  (by  presenting  the  original  bills)  I  deferred  delivering 
the  notice  to  the  auctioneer  till  nearly  the  last  moment  of  limitation  under 
the  Revised  Statutes,  as  I  did  not  wish  to  put  them  to  any  expense  which  I 
could  legally  avoid,  consequently  I  did  not  deliver  it  to  James  Seton,  Esq., 
the  auctioneer,  until  the  30th  of  December  last. 

On  comparing  the  three  first  sections  of  the  act  of  November  with  the 
17lst,  172d,  and  173d  of  the  Revised  Statutes  then  and  now  in  full  opera- 
tion, I  could  see  no  substantial  difference  between  them,  with  the  exception 
of  the  period  for  reporting  to  an  auctioneer  (from  the  1st  to  the  14th  of  Ja- 
nuary, say  60  days)  the  residue  differences  being  in  fact  the  mere  transpo* 
sitions  of  a  few  words  to  give  the  sections  the  appearance  of  novelty. 

Under  these  apparently  non-essential  differences  was  concealed  a  deep 
finesse  to  carry  inspectors  beyond  the  1st  of  January,  between  which  pe- 
riod and  the  14th  an  inspector  general  was,  it  is  said,  to  have  been  appoint- 
ed (from  among  inspectors,  ex-inspectors,  clerks,  or  agents)  when  as  pri- 
vate citizens  it  would  have  been  optional  to  make  or  withhold  reports  to 
auctioneers  as  might  suit  their  interests  or  convenience.  The  concluding 
paragraph  in  the  Hon.  Truman  Hart's  report  as  chairman  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee, will  throw  some  light  upon  the  subject. 

Not  having  any  special  reason  to  wish  to  protract  making  my  report  to 
an  auctioneer  beyond  the  1st  inst.  I  made  it  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  on  the 
30th  of  December,  and  on  the  1st  instant  made  my  report  and  affidavit  re- 


31 

«[uired  by  the  I74th  and  175^h  sections  to  you  officially,  which  I  forvvai)ded 
the  ensuing  day  by  a  gentleman,  who  1  understood  to  be  the  Hon.  Mr. 
Dayton,  a  member  of  the  assembly,  and  as  I  take  it  for  granted  you  are  in 
possession  of  the  papers,  I  now  refer  to  its  contents  for  particulars. 

Should,  however,  any  accident  have  prevented  your  receiving  the  re- 
port and  affidavit,  another  shall  bo  forwarded  if  made  known  to  me,  but 
having,  as  I  suppose,  substantially  complied  with  tbe  requirements  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  any  additional  return  under  the  1st  and  4th  sections, 
would  be  surplussage,  being  enjoined  by  the  6th  section  strictly  to  comply 
with  the  171st,  174th,  and  175th  sections  (under  a  heavy  penalty)  which 
done,  it  supersedes  the  necessity  of  a  compliance" With  similar  duties  en- 
joined in  the  act  of  November. 

In  a  conversation  with  a  person  intimately  conversant  with  the  opera- 
tions of  the  inspection  business.  I  mentioned  to  him  that  the  operation  of 
the  5th  section  was  to  legalize  all  the  illegal  sales  and  conversions  made 
previous  to  the  14th  of  November,  and  up  to  the  14th  of  January  instant, 
when  it  would  be  optional  in  inspectors  and  ex-inspectors  to  pay  any  sum 
'they  thought  proper  into  the  treasury  as  the  balance  of  proceeds  of  ashes 
sold  or  received,  or  to  aver  I  have  none  in  hand,  having  paid  all  over  to 
the  owner  or  owners.  Not  aware  of  the  amendments  made  in  the  assem- 
bly to  the  6th  section,  and  tlie  increase  of  the  penalty  of  the  177th  section, 
to  ^2500  and  imprisonment,  he  admitted  such  was  the  intended  operation 
of  the  section. 

The  fact  is,  sir,  the  friends  of  inspectors  (agents,  brokers,  and  others) 
particularly  Mr.  Snow's,  have  so  frequently  asserted  that  he  had  sold  and 
purchased  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  that  they  were  bound  in 
honour  to  get  a  section  passed  that  would  legalize  them  and  release  him  and 
others  from  the  pecuniary  penalties  for  such  illegal  acts,  although  the  moral 
guilt  must  remain  a  blot  on  their  escutcheons.  The  repeal  of  the  5th  sec- 
tion will  however  defeat  the  plan  entirely. 

Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  lay  my  communication  of  the  22d  and  23d 
of  October  last,  the  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  (and  the  report  and  affidavit 
enclosed)  with  this  letter,  before  the  select  committee  on  the  governor's 
message  on  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  they  will  quickly  see  the  wisdom  of 
his  remarks,  that  as  a  "general  rule  a  discretionary  power  cannot  be  con- 
fided to  any  one,  without  danger  of  abuse ;"  and  should  they  have  any 
"doubts"  on  the  subject,  the  documents  in  the  hands  of  the  chairman  of 
the  joint  committee  and  on  the  executive  files  will  dissipate  them. 

I  am,  very  respectively,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 

Note. — To  show  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  "  careful  revision  of  the 
statutes,"  relating  to  inspection  generally,  I  will  give  you  a  strong  case  in 
point,  out  of  hundreds  which  might  be  mentiojied.  Since  1 809,  little  or  no 
attention  has  been  paid  in  Albany  to  branding  of  casks  ;  in  fact  the  old 
laws  have  been  a  perfect  "  dead  letter." 

I  thought  the  64th  section  had  been  attended  to  in  Albany  until  tbe 
evening  of  the  25th  of  November  last,  when  a  large  quantity  of  ashes  was 
landed  unbranded.  Col.  Jeromus  Johnson,  (one  of  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  me  by  the  chamber  of  commerce)  knows  the  fact, 
havingoculardemonstrationonthesubject,  as  had  Capt.  Barnum  Whipple. 

I  aver,  that  private  marks  are  used  instead  of  brands,  on  which  subject  I 
refer  to  the  letter  to  lieut.  gov.  Pitcher,  dated  llth  November  last.  Con^ 
cealment  of  inspectors'  names,  places  of  inspection,  quality,  &c.  What 
can  all  this  mean  ?  On  the  very  face  of  the  transaction  there  is  something 
radically  wrong. 


32 


[SUPPRESSED.] 

New- York,  January  2i,  1829. 

Sir, 

I  wrote  your  predecessor,  W.  L.  Marcy,  Esq.  on  the  13tli  instant, 
in  answer  to  his  official  circular  of  the  8th  inst.  to  inspectors  of  pot  and 
pearl  ashes,  but  on  reflection,  not  deeming-  it  a  sufficiently  formal  return 
under  the  law,  I  now  enclose  you  an  affidavit  on  the  subject,  and  refer  for 
some  very  important  particulars  relative  to  unclaimed  ashes,  &c.  to  my 
letter  (with  enclosures,)  of  22d  and  23d  October  last,  to  the  report,  affida- 
vit and  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  and  the  above  enclosed. 

I  wish  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  175th  section  of  the  Re- 
vised Statute,  chapter  17,  and  the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  14th  November, 
1C28,  as  I  predict  attempts  will  be  made  to  palm  on  you  the  affidavit  under 
the  4th  section,  unaccompanied  by  the  all  important  affidavit  required  by 
the  175th  section. 

I  know  of  so  many  frauds  practised  under  spurious  "duplicate  bills,"  is- 
sued to  persons  who,  I  sm  persuaded,  have  no  legal  or  equitable  title  to  the 
ashes,  that  I  deem  it  a  duty  to  apprise  you  directly  of  the  abuse  of  the  "  dis- 
cretionary power,"  which  ought  not  to  be  entrusted  (without  limitation)  to 
any  one,  otherwise  it  will  be  (as  it  has  been)  used  for  the  most  illegitimate 
purposes.     In  haste,  I  am  very  respectfully,  sir, 

Your  most  ob'dt.  serv't. 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 
Comptroller  of  the  State,  Albany. 


[NOTE.] 

On  examination  you  will  find  that,  "  every  inspector  of  Provisions, 
Produce,  and  Merchandise"  are  bound  to  report  to  the  Comptroller  under 
the  174  section,  annually,  or  to  file  the  affidavit  required  by  the  176th  sec- 
tion; but  I  understand  no  report  will  be  made  but  under  the  1851h  sec- 
tion, to  the  legislature,  as  inspectors  are  under  the  impression  that  the  for- 
feiture for  neglect,  is  still  only  250  dollars. 

A  person  attached  to  an  office  was  astonished  (on  recently  reading  the 
Comptroller's  circular  of  the  8th  inst.)  to  find  that  by  the  1 1th  section  of 
the  act  of  14th  November  last,  the  revisers  had  been  directed  to  raise  the 
penalty  of  the  177th  section  from  250  dollars  to  2500  dollars,  and  impri- 
sonment for  a  year,  and  probably  that  after  the  1st  February,  that  district 
aftornies  would  have  official  directions  to  move  against  delinquent  inspect- 
ors, the  law  being  imperative  on  the  subject. 

I  wish  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  reports  of  Messrs.  Robert 
Snow  and  William  Dumont,  to  W.  W.  Whitmore,  Esq.  the  auctioneer, 
(published  in  the  New-York  Enquirer,  of  the  17th  inst.)  by  which  they 
stand  "self  convicted"  of  the  violation  of  the  3d,  5th  and  17th  sections  of 
act  of  5th  April,  1822. 

The  fact  is,  the  reports  would  not  have  been  made  had  not  the  inspect- 
ors been  under  the  impression  that  you  would  not  be  aware  that  the  re- 
ports under  the  4th  section,  must  be  accompanied  with  the  additional  af- 
fidavit required  by  the  175th  section. 

The  dates  when  the  scrapings  or  crustings  were  made,  Mr.  Snow  says 
are  not  recollected.  How  does  this  comport  with  the  3d  and  6th  sections 
above  alluded  to  ? 


33 

If  inspectors  were  legally  asked,  "Are  the  ashes,  fit  and  unfit  for  inspec- 
tion, (reported  to  Mr.  Whitmoro)  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  ?"  The  reply 
would  substantially  be,  "  All  that  have  not  been  previously  sold,  or  con- 
verted, or  used  under  duplicate  bills,  and  what  remains  on  hand  on  the 
14th  May  next,  not  paid  to  the  owner,  will  be  paid  into  the  treasury/' 
How  much  do  you  suppose  ?  Not  a  cent,  for  it  would  be  making^  a  very 
unpleasant  admission  indeed. 

Knowing  to  a  certainty  that  inspectors  frequently  did  "  remember  to 
forget"  to  note  the  scrapings  taken  out  of  absentee's  casks  on  the  copies,  I 
sent  one  of  those  inspectors  a  copy  of  the  instructions  given  me  by  Messrs. 
Nicholas  Devereaux  &  Co.  for  his  information.  It  is  so  highly  creditable 
to  those  gentlemen,  that  I  cannot  withhold  it,  being  my  rule  ever  since, 
with  the  3d  and  5th  sections. 

Dear  Sir, 

We  received  some  days  since,  your  inspection  bill  of  ashes,  dated 
25th  July  ;  for  the  future  the  ashes  you  may  inspect  for  us,  you  will  please 
have  the  name  in  full  on  the  copy  opposite  the  number.  You  will  oblige 
us  by  being  as  exact  and  particular  in  this  respect  as  possible.  The  bar- 
rels marked  H,  make  out  in  separate  bills  ;  in  the  bill  received  there  are 
four  barrels  of  this  mark  included  with  those  without. 
Very  respectfully,  we  are 

Your  ob'dt.  serv'ts. 
(Signed)  NICHOLAS  DEVEREAUX  &  CO. 

Utica,  September  8th,  1825. 

P.  S.  When  ashes  cannot  be  put  back  into  the  same  barrel  we  want  a 
memo  onthe  copy  of  the  quantity,  and  should  it  be  put  into  another  bar- 
rel, it  is  necessary  we  should  know  it.  We  take  ashes  from  different  own- 
ers, and  it  is  right  that  we  should  have  the  return  of  each  barrel. 

N.  D.  &  CO. 

From  which  it  appears  that  N.  D.  &  Co.  are  not  advocates  for  a  "  gen- 
eral average"  system,  giving  a  man  entitled  to  one  half  percent,  say  three 
per  cent. ;  and  one  entitled  to  sixteen  and  one  ninth  per  cent,  the  same:  the 
height  of  injustice  in  my  opinion,  even  if  made. 

My  hypothesis  has  been,  and  is,  that  all  ashes  which  by  accident  or  de- 
sign, were  not  reported  in  the  copies,  if  not  claimed  by  the  country  owner, 
become  "unclaimed"  ashes,  and  should  have  been  reported  as  such  to  an 
auctioneer,  whether  held  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance. 

The  aggregate  loss  to  the  country  owner  has  been  enormous  within  the 
thirty  consecutive  years  past,  considering  the  average  of  unmerchantable 
ashes,  scrapings,  &:.c.  is  fifteen  and  one  sixth  lb.  per  cask,  or  three  per 
cent.  ;  shewing  the  necessity  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  me  in  my  me- 
morial of  16th  October  last,  requesting  the  inspectors  to  certify  the  copies 
to  be  true,  which  with  others  equally  important,  was  through  "Back 
stairs"  or  "  Lobby"  influence  rejected. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 


[ENCLOSED.] 

City  of  New-York,  ss. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  Robert  R.  Henry,  one  of  the  in- 
spectors of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  for  the  City  of  New-York,  who  being  duly 
sworn,  deposeth  and  saith  : 


34 

That  agreeably  to  the  171st  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17, 
passed  3d  December,  1827,  he  did  oa  the  30th  December,  1828,  officially 
report  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  an  auctioneer  for  said  city,  nineteen  casks  of 
pot  and  pearl  ashes,  which  had  not  been  claimed  within  the  pei'iod  required 
by  law  ;  that  he  furnished  the  auctioneer  with  the  invoice  or  bills,  required 
by  the  said  section,  and  that  the  ashes  mentioned  in  the  report  and  bills 
were  all  the  ashes,  to  the  knowledge  of  this  deponent,  in  his  possession,  or 
in  the  possession  of  any  other  person  or  persons  for  him,  which  had  not 
been  "  leg-ally''  claimed  by  the  production  of  the  original  bills  or  receipts, 
or  had  not  been  previously  reported  and  sold  by  an  auctioneer,  according- 
to  law. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  by  the  174th  section  of 
the  Revised  Statute,  it  is  enacted,  "Every  inspector  shall  annually,  on  the 
first  day  of  January,  transmit  on  oath,  to  the  Comptroller,  a  duplicate  of 
every  invoice  or  bill  of  such  articles  which,  during  the  preceding  year, 
may  have  been  delivered  to  any  auctioneer,  and  the  amount  received  by 
him  on  the  sales  of  any  such  articles  from  any  auctioneer.'' 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  it  was  represented  to 
the  honorable  James  McCall,  (from  the  western  district,)  that  certain  mal- 
practices existed  in  inspection  offices,  among  which  was  the  withholding 
returns  of  scrapings  or  crustings  "on  the  copies  of  the  invoice  or  weigh 
note  of  the  potash,  from  which  it  was  taken,''  contrary  to  the  3d  and  5tb 
sections  of  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822,  and  further,  that  the  returns  of  un- 
claimed ashes  had,  for  many  consecutive  years,  been  also  illegally  with- 
held from  auctioneers,  contrary  to  the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  25th  Feb- 
ruary, 1813,  and  the  17th  section  of  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  representations,  the  175th  section  of  the  "general  provi- 
sions" of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  article  12,  was  made  specially  to 
apply  to  inspectors  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes. 

"Every  such  report,  (under  the  174th  section,)  shall  be  accompanied  by 
an  oath  or  affirmation,  taken  and  subscribed  before  some  proper  officer, 
that  he  has  delivered  to  some  auctioneer,  (mentioning  his  name,)  an  in- 
voice, weigh  note  or  bill  of  inspection  of  all  unclaimed  ashes  which  had 
been  in  his  hands  one  year  or  more,  and  that  he  had  duly  accounted  with 
the  owner  or  agent  for  all  the  ashes  delivered  to  his  care  as  the  law  directs, 
and  that  he  had  not  by  himself  or  any  other  person  in  his  employ,  made 
out  any  invoice,  weigh  note  or  bill  of  inspection  of  a  later  date  than  the 
time  such  ashes  were  duly  inspected,  and  that  the  same  were  emptied 
out  of  the  cask  or  casks  and  duly  examined  at  the  date  of  every  such  in- 
voice, weigh  note  or  bill  of  inspection." 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  the  first  day  of  Jan- 
uary instant,  he  did  transmit  to  the  Comptroller,  the  duplicate  bills,  and 
the  statement  of  monies  received  from  sales  as  required  by  the  174th  sec- 
tion, and  accompanied  them  with  the  affidavit,  as  above  imperatively  re- 
quired by  the  175th  section,  which  report  he  forwarded  under  cover  to 
Wm.  L.  Marcy,  Esq.  Comptroller,  by  a  gentleman  who  he  understood  to 
be  the  honourable  William  Dayton,  of  the  Assembly,  and  to  which  he  re- 
fers for  particulars. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  the  12th  January 
instant,  he  received  by  mail  an  official  letter  from  the  Comptroller,  dated 
"  Albany  January  8,  1829,"  to  which  was  subjoined  the  copy  of  "  An  act 
respecting  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  the  duty  of  inspect- 
ors and  auctioneers,"  passed  November  14th,  1828,  in  which  he  officially 
calls  on  this  deponent  for  "A  compliance  with  its  requirements,"  that  on 
comparing  the  first  four  sections  of  the  act  with  the  171st,  172d,  173d  and 
174th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  he  found  the  require- 
ments to  be  substantially  the  same,  with  the  exception  that  the  period  for 


35 

making  returns  to  an  auctioneer,   was  extended  to  the  14th    January 
inst.  and  to  the  Comptroller  to  the  1st  February  next. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining- whether  he  had  omitted  to  report  any  unclaimed  ashes,  fit 
or  unfit  for  inspection  in  the  report  made  to  James  Seton,  Esquire, 
on  the  30th  December  last,  he  re-examined  his  books  of  inspection,  and 
can  find  none  to  report  to  an  auctioneer  under  the  1st  section  of  the  act, 
consequently  he  has  do  report,  statement  or  afiidavit  to  transmit  to  the 
comptroller,  under  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  14th  November  last. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  by  the  6th  section  of 
the  act  of  the  14th  Nov.  last,  it  is  enacted  "  Any  violation  of  the  preced- 
ing sections,  or  of  the  171st,  I74lh,  175th  or  176th  sections  of  chapter  17, 
title  2,  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  shall  be  misdemeanor  punishable  by  a  fine 
not  exceeding  2500  dollars,  and  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  a  year." 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  having  made  his  re- 
turns to  an  auctioneer  and  the  comptroller  under  the  171st,  174th  and 
175th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute,  he  is  exempted  from  filing  the  affi- 
davit required  by  the  176th  section,  that  it  being  expressly  forbidden  (un- 
der heavy  penalties,)  by  the  14th  section  of  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822,  and 
the  76th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  for  an  inspector 
to  buy  or  sell,  or  deal  directly  or  indirectly  in  ashes,  fit  or  unfit  for 
inspection,  this  deponent  has  no  proceeds  of  ashes  sold  or  received  by  him 
to  pay  over  to  the  treasurer  of  this  state ;  nor  to  an  owner  under  the  5th 
section,  he  having  already,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  duly  ac- 
counted for  all  ashes  of  every  description  delivered  to  his  care,  since  he  be- 
came an  inspector  on  16th  August,  1824,  if  not  agreeable  to  the  exact  let- 
ter, he  has  to  the  spirit  of  the  inspection  laws,  and  that,  whenever  he  has 
exercised  the  "  discretionary,"  (or  "  constructive")  power,  of  issuing  '•  du- 
plicate" bills,  (mentioned  in  his  exhibit.  No.  3,  and  transmitted  to  the 
Comptroller  on  the  1st  instant,)  the  transactions  were  bona  fide  ones,  no 
collusion  or  understanding  whatsoever  existing  to  defeat  the  rights  of  in- 
dividuals, or  the  people  of  the  state  between  him  or  any  person,  directly  or 
indirectly,  in  or  out  of  his  inspection  office,  and  further  this  deponent 
saith  not. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 

Sworn  the  21st  January,  1829,  before  me, 

J.  HAMMOND, 
Assistant  Justice,  and  Justice  of  the  Peace, 


[SUPPRESSED,] 

After  the  words  "  A  practice,"  and  "  Independently."     See  journals  of 
Senate  and  Assembly  4th  and  6th  February  1829,  pages  153  and  389. 

To  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-  York  in  Senate  and  Assent, 
hly  convened. 
The  Report  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  one  of  the  Inspectors  of  Pot  and 
Pearl  Ashes  for  the  City  and  County  of  New-York,  under  the  1 85th  section 
of  the  General  Provisions  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  Chapter  17,  Article  12, 
passed  3d  December,  1827, 

Respectfully  sheweth, 

That  between  the  1st  January  1828  and  the  1st  January  1829,  he 
inspected,  according  to  law,  the  following  quantities  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes, 
and  the  scrapings  or  crustings  of  ashes,  viz : 


36 

Casks.  cwt.  qrs.  lbs, 

1108         1st  potashes  4995  1  0     N. 

18         2d      do.  74  0  4 

2         3d      do.  8  3  9 

598         1st  pearlashes  2069  3  1 

1         2d      do.  3  0  12 

-  —                                      Fees. 

1727  casks  pot  and  pearl.  7150  0  26     at  11  c.  per  cwt.     g786  60 

39  do.     scrapings  147  2  3     at  12  1-2                     18  46 


1766     in  all  7298         2         I     N.     gross  fees,     ^805  06 

Which  ashes  were  inspected  in  the  months  of  January,  February, 
March,  and  April  last,  and  the  following  estimate  will  show  pretty  nearly 
the  real  average  value : 

Casks.  cwt.  qrs.  lbs. 

1128     potashes  5078         0  13  at  42  $26,660  12 

599     pearlashes  2072         3  13  at  43  11,141  61 

39     scrapings  147         2  S  at  26  479  47 


1766  casks  ashes  7298         2  1      average  value     g38,281  20 

Independently  of  the  fees  above  mentioned,  (eight  hundred  and  five 
dollars  and  six  cents)  the  inspector  is  required  to  report  the  '•  emoluments 
derived  from  his  office,"  which  I  state  (exclusive  of  fees)  at  seventy-nine 
dollars  and  fifty  cents,  derived  from  extra  cooperage,  condemned  casks  and 
hoops  ;  but  as  I  suppose  the  storage  on  ashes  not  to  be  an  "  emolument,*' 
but  a  "  set-ofF"  against  the  enormous  rent  (g^llOO  and  taxes)  which  I  had 
to  pay,  I  do  not  include  it;  but  should  it  be  deemed  such,  1  estimate  the 
storage  received  in  1828  by  me  to  be  nearly  equal  to  a  quarter's  store-rent. 

A  practice  has  existed  for  "  between  20  and  30  years  past,"  of 
withholding  returns  of  unclaimed  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection, 
and  making  away  with  them  privately  and  illegally,  (in  various  ways)  under 
the  "constructive''  or  "  discretionary"  power,  by  issuing  "  duplicate"  and 
"  supplementary"  bills  to  brokers,  clerks,  &c.  (who  showed  no  "  legal''  or 
equitable  title)  under  various  pretexts,  such  as,  that  the  ashes  "  had  suf- 
fered by  keeping,"  and  that  the  inspector  "  wished  to  supply  their  place" 
with  merchantable  ashes  when  "called  for  ;"  consequently,  when  by  any 
casualty,  such  as  death,  the  loss  of  bills,  receipts,  kc.  the  owners  or  their 
representatives  have  not  appeared  to  "  claim  ;"  the  ashes  or  proceeds  to  an 
immense  amount  have  escheated  (o^-  fallen  in)  to  inspectors  and  ex-inspec- 
tors, instead  of  the  people  of  the  state,  contrary  to  the  evident  intention  of 
the  legislature  expressed  in  the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  25th  February 
1813,  the  3d,  5th,  14th  and  17lh  sections  of  act  of  5th  April  1822,  the  76th, 
171  st  to  the  176th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  relative  to 
such  "contingent  remainders." 

As  I  have  always  deemed  the  issuing  of  "  duplicate"  or  supplemen- 
tary bills  to  clerks,  brokers,  or  other  "  convenient  friends,"  (who  showed 
no  "  legal''  or  "  equitable''  title  to  the  "  unclaimed  property")  to  be  decep- 
tive, 1  have  always  pronounced  such  transactions  to  be  constructive,  le- 
gal, or  moral  frauds,  and  have  brought  the  fact  that  such  acts  have  existed 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  comptroller,  (as  trustee  to  the  fund)  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  that  dangerous  "  discretionary"  power  taken  from  inspec- 
tors, and  that  they  may  be  called  on  by  law  to  follow  my  example  of  fur- 
nishing the  comptroller  with  a  detailed  statement  on  oath  of  the  "  duplicate'' 
or  supplementary  bills  they  have  issued,  when,  to  whom,  &c.  and  what  dis- 
position has  been  made  of  the  proceeds,  what  proportion  is  held  directly 
and  what  indirectly  in  abeyance 

At  least  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  should  have  been  deposited 


37 

within  the  30  consecutive  years  past,  in  the  treasury,  as  the  proceeds  of 
tinclaimed  ashes  illeg-ally  withheld  from  the  unfortunate  owners  and  the 
state,  whereas  not  ^750  will  be  found  there.  As  I  take  it  for  granted  the 
comptroller  will  lay  my  letters,  affidavits,  &:c.  (dated  22d  October,  the  Ist, 
13th,  and  21st  instant)  before  the  select  committee  appointed  on  the  Revised 
Statutes,  I  shall  merely  refer  to  them  for  particulars,  instead  of  repeating 
the  contents. 

A  *'  discretionary"  power  with  "trust  property"  cannot  be  entrusted 
to  any  one  without  danger  of  abuse,  and  should  be  taken  from  inspectors 
without  the  least  delay.  Should  there  be  any  doubts  that  the  power  has 
been  abused,  the  documents  in  the  hands  of  the  chairman  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee (or  my  memorials  and  Keport  of  3d  April  and  8th  and  16th  October 
last)  and  the  executive  files  will  show,  if  not  the  examination  of  clerks,  of 
inspectors,  and  ex-inspectors,  would  conclusively  establish  the  truth  of  the 
allegations;  but  our  own  declarations  would  do  that,  if  the  comptroller  (as 
I  proposed  in  my  amendments,  &;c.)  should  be  directed  to  call  upon  us  to 
account  directly  on  oath  to  him. 

The  reason  for  the  great  disproportion  between  the  ashes  reported 
by  me  and  my  coaJjutors  in  office,  will  appear  from  my  report,  (printed  by 
order  of  the  Assembly  on  20th  October  last.  No.  1)  and  a  memorial  which 
I  contemplate  forwardiug  to  the  Legislature,  praying  (for  reasons  that  will 
be  given)  that  inquiry  might  be  made  into  the  motive  of  the  Hon.  Truman 
Hart  reporting,  (as  chairman  of  the  joint  committee,) 

"  Inasmuch  as  the  Revised  Statutes  are  not  understood  as  requiring 
the  inspectors  to  account  for  unclaimed  ashes  previous  to  the  first  day  of 
May  last,  your  committee  had  thought  fit  to  provide  for  the  case." 

If  the  first  four  sections  of  the  Hon.  Truman  Hart's  bill  are  collated 
with  the  171st,  172d,  173d,  and  174th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute,  Chap- 
ter 17,  Article  12,  "  General  Provisions,"  (then  and  now  in  full  operation) 
they  will  be  found  (with  the  transposition  of  a  few  words  to  give  them  the 
appearance  of  novelty)  to  be  substantially  copies,  with  the  exception  that 
inspectors  are  given  from  the  first  to  the  fourteenth  instant  to  report  to 
auctioneers,  and  from  the  first  of  January  instant  till  first  of  February  en- 
suing to  report,  &c.  to  the  comptroller,  all  which  was  done  for  the  purpose  of 
introducing  into  the  law  the  5th  section,  which  legalizes  all  the  illegal  sales 
and  conversions  made  within  the  40  consecutive  years  past ;  overturning, 
with  the  stroke  of  a  pen,  the  entire  system  of  policy  on  which  the  former 
laws  were  predicated. 

As  I  shall  go  into  details  on  the  subject  in  the  memorial,  (and  prove 
the  fact  from  the  laws  beyond  the  possibility  of  contradiction)  I  shall  refer 
to  it  for  particulars. 

The  collector  of  this  port  has  to  disclose,  in  a  newspaper,  every  nine 
months,  the  head-marks,  &;c.  of  all  unclaimed  property  in  his  possession, — 
and  we  inspectors  every  twelve  months.  What  I  respectfully  ask  would 
be  said  and  done  to  Mr.  Thompson,  if  it  was  found  he  had  systematically 
neglected  to  perform  so  important  a  duty,  and  particularly  if  it  was  found 
he  had  illegally  disposed  of  the  property  (in  whole  or.  in  part)  for  his  own 
benefit  or  that  of  others,  instead  of  depositing  the  proceeds  in  the  treasury, 
as  is  imperatively  required  by  law  ?  The  reason  for  his  "  neglect"  of  duty 
would,  at  least,  be  inquired  into. 

By  the  185th  section,  the  inspector  is  required  to  communicate  in 
his  Report 

"  Such  information  possessed  by  him  as  may  tend  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  quality,  or  increase  the  quantity  of  the  articles  subject  to  his 
inspection." 

In  my  memorial  of  the  8th  October  last,  I  took  up  the  inspection 
law  by  sections,  pointed  out  the  defects  in  many  of  them,  and  suggested 
amendments,  every  one  of  which  were  rejected  in  the  bill  as  reported  by 

6 


38 

the  Hod.  Truman  Hart  save  one  as  to  the  size  of  casks,  in  the  63d  section. 
Some  of  the  amendments  proposed  are  so  self-evidently  necessary,  that  I 
be^  leave  now  to  refer  to  them.  I  will  mention  one  or  two,  and  refer  to 
the  memorial  for  the  rest. 

The  copies  of  bills  issued  from  inspection  offices  are  not  signed  by 
the  inspector;  consequently  no  official  responsibility  attaches  to  him.  I 
proposed  that  we  should  certify,  under  our  hand,  that  the  copies  contained 
the  weight  of  all  the  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection.  Until  I  per- 
sonally interfered,  not  one  copy  in  twenty  was  a  true  report,  the  unmer- 
chantable ashes  (scrapings,  3  percent.)  being  frequently  and  designedly 
omitted. 

I  am  opposed  to  this  on  principle,  and  because  the  ashes  withheld 
have  been  sold  on  "  duplicate"  or  supplementary  bills,  (to  my  certain 
knowledge)  by  clerks  and  other  agents,  violating  of  course  the  14th  section 
of  the  act  5th  April  1822.  The  withholding  returns  of  scrapings  and 
selling  them,  lead  to  the  withholding  the  "  unclaimed''  ashes  as  a  natural 
consequence. 

No  inspector  of  '■  provisions,  produce,  or  merchandise,"  in  my  opi- 
nion, should  be  allowed  the  least  "  contingent  income ;''  (as  from  ashes  fit 
or  unfit  for  inspection)  but  if  by  accident  or  design  he  has  omitted  to  make 
returns,  he  should  be  compelled  to  report  them  as  unclaimed  property,  so 
that  if  the  owner  must  lose  them,  the  beneficial  interest  should  inure  to  the 
state  and  not  to  the  inspector.  Omissions  would  then  seldom  be  made 
again. 

As  lately  as  25th  November  last,  I  saw  a  large  quantity  of  Albany 
inspected  ashes  landed  here  unbranded,  and  with  the  private  marks  on  them 
no  doubt.  The  Legislature  cannot  too  soon  put  a  stop  to  the  practice, 
because  such  ashes  have  been  frequently  passed  here  without  examination, 
I  refer  to  the  copies  of  documents  on  the  executive  files  on  the  subject  as 
far  back  as  9th  and  13th  June  1825,  and  to  others  of  recent  dates  to  the 
Joint  Committee,  the  Lieutenant  Governor,  and  Comptroller. 

I  have  a  deep  interest  in  perfecting  the  inspection  system  generally, 
as  I  may  be  compelled  again  to  become  a  dealer  in  '*  provisions,  produce, 
and  merchandise,"  having  given  great  offence  to  inspectors  and  their  pow- 
erful partisans,  from  my  unyielding  adherence  to  the  law,  and  the  part  I 
have  taken  in  procuring  amendments,  particularly  in  raising  the  penalt}' 
of  the  177th  section  to  ^2500  and  imprisonment  in  case  returns  are  not 
made  agreeably  to  the  171st,  175th,  or  176th  sections,  without  which  had 
been  done  the  inspection  law  would  be  practically  a  mere  "dead  letter." 
as  every  inspector  extensively  in  business  would  have  preferred  paying  the 
^250  rather  than  have  the  trouble  of  reporting,  (to  the  auctioneer  and 
comptroller)  and  particularly  as  it  covered  all  errors  made  during  the  year 
(whether  wilful  or  accidental)  by  himself  or  his  subordinates. 

In  the  report  of  the  Honorable  Truman  Hart,  on  SOth  October  last, 
(printed  by  order  of  the  Assembly,  4th  November  last,  No.  2)  he  says, 

<'  There  is  no  doubt  but  many  inspectors  are  in  possession  of  large 
sums  arising  from  unclaimed  ashes."  . 

Which  report  was  accompanied  with  his  bill,  the  5th  section  of 
which  legalizes  all  such  sales  of  ashes  made  directly  or  indirectly  by  "  an 
inspector  or  person  having  been  an  inspector,"  provided  they  will  now  pay 
over  to  the  owner  or  the  treasurer  the  proceeds  within  six  months  without 
interest,  having  had  the  use  of  the  funds  many  years. 

For  the  purpose  of  bringing  themselves  under  the  operation  of  the 
5th  section,  and  to  falsify  my  assertion  that  it  would  require  a  gazette  of  the 
size  of  Lang's  to  contain  the  head-marks,  &c.  of  unclaimed  ashes  to  be  re- 
ported by  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper,  Remsen,  and  Dumont,  "  duplicate  bills" 
have,  I  aver,  been  issued  to  persons  who  showed  no  "  legal"  or  equitable 
right,  but  on  the  mere  averment  that  they  were  the  "  owners  :"  theconse" 


39 

quence  is,  that  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  unsold  have  been  reported  in  Noah's 
Enquirer  of  the  17th  inst.  in  a  very  short  space  indeed. 

If  inspectors  are  asked,  Was  any  ''  leg-al''  title  shown  ?  The  reply 
would  be,  the  Legislature  having  sanctioned  the  report  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee, declaring-  the  word  ''■  legal''  to  be  "  unnecessary,"  I  consequently 
am  sole  judge  as  to  the  "•  legality"  or  equity  of  any  "  claim,''  and  have  the 
right  to  insist  upon  or  dispense  with  the  production  of  the  original  bills  or 
receipts  at  my  pleasure.  I  ask  respectfully,  will  the  Legislature  allow  the 
5th  section  to  have  its  full  operation,  when  it  can  be  "  legally"  repealed, 
and  inspectors  called  upon  to  render  an  account  of  the  "duplicate"  bills 
issued  ?  I  have  been  told  of  a  "  duplicate"  bill  issued  for  95  casks  and  20 
casks,  &c.  to  persons  who  had  no  right  to  the  property  to  hold  till  defunct 
owners  appeared  to  claim.  Returns  to  the  comptroller,  on  oath,  would 
develope  a  state  of  things  not  dreamt  of  by  the  Legislature.  By  an  inspec- 
tion of  the  5th  section,  it  will  be  found  that  the  mere  averment  of  an  in- 
spector or  ex-inspector  that  he  has  paid  the  proceeds  of  ashes  "  sold  or  re- 
ceived'' to  the  owner,  \?,  prima  facie  evidence  that  he  has  done  so  until  the 
contrary  is  shown,  no  oath  or  other  evidence  being  required,  that  he  has 
actually  done  so.  In  fact,  as  the  section  now  stands,  an  inspector  or  ex- 
inspector  can  act  and  do  as  he  chooses  as  to  the  proceeds  of  ashes  sold. 

It  frequently  happens  that  when  the  interests  of  private  individuals 
suffer,  the  public  is  benefited.  Shortly  after  I  became  an  inspector,  148 
casks  of  ashes  were  passed  here,  by  a  foreman  or  clerk,  in  two  hours, 
(agreeably,  I  presume,  to  the  Albany  private  marks)  see  letter  on  execu- 
tive files  dated  13th  June  1825,  at  an  expense  of  one  tenth  it  would  cost 
me,  so  that  all  fair  competition  was  out  of  the  question,  unless  I  put  a  stop 
to  the  practice.  "  Lobby  influence"  has  as  yet  been  too  powerful  for  me. 
The  fact  that  such  a  practice  existed,  I  take  it  for  granted  will  not  be 
denied.     Again : 

Application  was  made  to  inspect  a  large  quantity  of  ashes,  (then  on 
the  dock)  the  bills  to  be  ready  by  "  coffee-house  hours."  The  applicant 
was  told  that  was  impossible.  He  however  found  ways  and  means  to  have 
his  bills  by  the  time.  It  appears  all  that  was  wanted  was  the  re-weighing 
the  casks,  (so  as  to  get  New-York  bills  of  inspection)  the  motive  for  which 
may  be  got  at  by  referring  to  letters  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Johnson  and  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Pitcher,  dated  8th  and  llth  November  last,  and  to  the 
executive  files,  &c. 

I  repeat,  too  severe  a  punishment  cannot  be  inflicted  on  inspectors 
who  pass  ashes  without  examination,  or  suffer  them  to  be  taken  from  the 
office  unbranded,  because  such  practices  strike  at  the  root  of  the  inspection 
system.  I  proposed  amendments  to  correct  such  proceedings,  but  they 
were  rejected  through  the  same  ''  lobby"  influence. 

Intimation  has  been  frequently  given,  (both  in  and  out  of  my  office} 
if  I  would  only  do  as  others  did,  my  business  would  be  unbounded.  My 
reply  however  has  been  substantially,  that  I  would  do  nothing  but  in  strict 
conformity  to  law  ;  consequently  I  have  been  told  by  friends  (as  there  was 
no  friendship  in  trade)  my  patrons  would  become  less  and  less  every  day  ; 
that  I  was  an  excellent  inspector  for  the  purchaser,  but  the  reverse  for  the 
seller;  and  confirming  the  threat  mentioned  by  me  in  my  letter  to  the 
Hon.  Cadwallader  D.  Golden,  as  far  back  as  the  29th  March,  1825,  that 
"I  would  have  to  conform  to  the  old  inspectors'  mode  of  doing  business, 
otherwise  hold  an  office  without  patronage,"  which  I  told  him  I  thought 
"  A  pretty  hard  case  with  the  law  in  my  favour." 

Individual  suffering  is  nothing  to  the  public,  if  they  do  not  suffer  in 
consequence  of  it. 

The  evidence  that  my  allegations  are  true,  will  be  exemplified  in 
the  attempts  that  will  be  made  to  smother  inquiry  into  their  truth  or 


40 

falsity,  although  the  charges  so  deeply  affect  character  both  publie  and^ 
private. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)  R.  R    HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes  ^ 
New-York,  24th  January,  1829. 


New-York,  24th  January,  1829. 
Sir, 

I  enclose  you  my  report  as  inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes  for  the 
city  of  New-York,  under  the  18^th  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  Chap- 
ter 17,  Article  12,  passed  3d  December  1827. 
I  am  very  respectfully,  Sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
The  Honourable  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  Albany^ 
Per  William  James,  Esq. 


New-York,  31st  January,  ISSQ". 
Sir, 

The  above  is  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly, 
enclosing  my  report  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  which 
was  delivered  to  William  James,  Esq.  (of  the  house  of  William  &  John 
James,  of  this  city)  on  board  the  steam-boat  Commerce,  on  the  24th  inst. 
Not  seeing  it  noticed  in  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  this  week,  I 
am  to  presume  it  has  miscarried. 

I  enclose  you  the  duplicate,  which  please  to  have  presented  to  the 
House  over  which  you  preside. 

In  great  haste,  I  am.  Sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes^ 
To  the  Honourable  the  President  of  the  Senate,  Albany. 
Per  mail. 


[SUPPRESSED.] 
To  Green  C.  Bronson,  Esq.,  Attorney  General,  Albany. 

New- York,  February  7, 1826. 

Sir, 

By  the  186tb  section  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  "  Gene- 
ral Provisions,"  every  inspector  has  on  or  before  the  1st  day  of  February, 
in  each  year,  to  make  the  report  to  the  legislature  required  by  the  1 85th 
section,  if  not,  for  each  offence  he  forfeits  ^200,  which  you  are  officially 
directed  to  prosecute  him  for  on  behalf  of  the  people. 

Having  transmitted  all  the  reports  and  affidavits  required  by  the  Revised 
Statutes  and  the  act  of  the  14th  of  November  last,  previous  to  the  25th 


41 

ult.  (to  the  comptroller  and  legislature)  I  supposed  that  the  one  required 
by  the  185th  section  (forwarded  by  a  private  conveyance)  had  reached  its 
destination,  but  finding  no  mention  of  it  in  the  reported  proceedings  of  the 
assembly,  I  forwarded  a  duplicate  copy  on  the  31st  ult.  to  the  "  president 
of  the  senate,"  which  not  being  reported  on  the  3d  inst.  I  am  technically 
a  defaulter  ;  but  to  show  you,  sir,  that  I  have  endeavoured  to  do  my  duty, 
and  am  not  equitably  a  delinquent,  I  send  you  the  enclosed  affidavit. 

The  fact  is,  any  omissions  of  duty  on  my  part,  would  be  inexcusable, 
considering  that  seVeral  of  the  sections  on  the  "  General  Provisions"  were 
introduced  for  me  by  the  Hon.  James  M'Call,  and  recently  the  penalty  in 
the  177th  section  was  increased  from  ;g(250  to  $2500  (and  imprisonment)  at 
my  special  instance  and  request. 

I  take  it  for  granted,  the  duplicate  per  mail  will  be  received.     In  haste, 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 


City  of  New- York,  ss. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  Robert  R.  Henry,  one  of  the  Inspectors 
of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes,  for  the  City  of  New-York,  who  being  duly  swornjf 
deposeth  and  saith, 

That  by  the  17th  section  of  "  An  act  concerning  the  inspection  of  pot 
and  pearl  ashes,"  passed  April  5,  1822,  the  inspector  is  imperatively  requi- 
red to  report  to  an  auctioneer  all  ashes  (whether  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection) 
as  "  unclaimed,"  which  had  "  not  been  claimed  or  demanded  within  one 
year  from  the  time  the  same  should  have  been  inspected,"  that  in  com- 
pliance with  the  requirements  of  the  statute,  he  did,  on  or  about  the  22d  of 
September,  182G,  report  a  quantity  of  ashes  as  '*  unclaimed"  to  Martin 
Hoffman  and  Sons,  the  auctioneers,  which  ashes  were  advertised  by  them 
for  sale  in  the  New- York  Daily  Advertiser,  and  in  the  state  paper,  a  copy 
of  which  advertisement  will  be  found  in  his  report  dated  16th  of  October 
last,  printed  by  order  of  the  assembly,  on  the  20th  October  last.  No.  1. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  or  about  the  21st  of 
January,  1828,  he  made  a  further  report  of"  unclaimed"  ashes  to  James 
Seton,  Esq.  the  auctioneer,  which  will  be  found  published  in  the  New-York 
Morning  Courier  and  the  state  paper,  a  copy  of  which  advertisement  will 
be  found  printed  in  the  report  above  mentioned,  and  to  which  he  refers  for 
particulars. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  by  the  171st  section  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  article  12,  chapter  17  of  the  "general  provisions," 
passed  the  3d  of  December,  1827,  every  inspector  is  also  directed  to  re- 
port to  an  auctioneer  all  articles  "  subject  to  inspection"  stored  for  inspec- 
tion and  not  claimed  by  the  owner  within  one  year,  under  which  section  he  did 
on  or  about  the  SOth  of  December  last,  report  the  "  unclaimed''  ashes  then 
on  hand  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  the  said  auctioneer,  whose  advertisement,  un- 
der the  I72d  section  of  said  statute,  will  be  found  in  the  New-York  Daily 
Advertiser,  and  the  state  paper. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  the  174th  section  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  says : 

"  Every  inspector  shall  annually  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  transmit,  on 
oath,  to  the  comptroller,  a  duplicate  of  every  invoice  or  bill,  of  such  arti- 
cles as  during  the  preceding  year  may  have  been  delivered  to  any  auction- 


42 

eer,  and  the  amount  received  by  him  on  the  sales  of  any  articles  from  any 
auctioneer." 

And  further  by  the  175th  section  : 

"  Every  such  report  of  any  inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  shall  be  ac- 
companied by  an  oath  or  aflSrmation  taken  and  subscribed  before  some  pro- 
per officer,  that  he  has  delivered  to  some  auctioneer  of  the  city  and  county 
(mentioning  his  name)  an  invoice,  weig-h  rate,  or  bill  of  inspection  of  all 
unclaimed  ashes,  which  had  been  in  his  hands  one  year,  or  more  ;  and  that 
he  had  duly  accounted  with  the  owner  or  agent  for  all  ashes  delivered  to  his 
care,  as  the  law  directs  ;  and  that  he  had  not  by  himself  or  any  person  in 
his  employ,  made  out  any  invoice,  weigh  rate,  or  bill  of  inspection  of  a 
later  date  than  the  time  such]ashes  were  duly  inspected  ;  and  that  the  same 
were  emptied  out  of  the  cask  or  casks,  and  duly  examined  at  the  date  of 
every  such  invoice,  weigh  note,  or  bill  of  inspection." 

All  which  requisitions  (duplicates,  affidavits,  «fec.)  were  fully  ccmiplied 
with  by  this  deponent,  and  forwarded,  under  cover,  (with  a  letter)  to  the 
comptroller  by  a  gentleman,  who  he  understood  to  be  the  hon.  Mr.  Dayton 
of  the  assembly,  and  to  which  he  refers  for  particulars. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  the  12th  of^  January 
ult.  he  received  from  Wm.  L.  Marcy,  Esq.  the  comptroller,  a  circular  let- 
ter, dated  "  Albany,  January  8,  1829,"  to  which  was  subjoined  a  copy  of 

*'  An  act  respecting  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  the  duties 
of  inspectors  and  auctioneers,"  passed  November  14,  1828,  in  which  letter 
he  calls  upon  this  deponent  for  a  compliance  with  its  requirements,  and  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  alluded  to  in  the  6th  section  of  said  act. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  examination  of  the 
first  four  sections  of  the  act  of  November  14th,  1828,  he  found  their  re- 
quirements substantially  the  same  as  the  I71st,  172d,  173d,  and  174th  sec- 
tions of  the  Revised  Statutes  (then  and  now  in  full  force)  excepting  as  to 
the  extension  of  time  for  making  returns  to  the  auctioneer  and  comptrol- 
ler, and  that  having  complied  with  them,  was,  in  fact,  a  compliance  with 
the  act  of  November  last,  and  so  I  informed  the  comptroller  in  my  letter 
dated  January  13,  1829,  forwarded  by  mail,  and  to  which  he  refers  for 
particulars. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  reflection,  he  did 
not  deem  the  return  by  a  letter  a  sufficiently  formal  one,  and  particularly 
as  it  was  publicly  announced  that  Wm.  L.  Marcy,  esq.  had  resigned  his 
office  as  comptroller,  and  that  his  successor  might  not  be  as  well  acquainted 
with  the  facts  in,  the  case,  in  consequence  of  which  an  affidavit  was  made 
by  this  deponent  on  the  21st  of  January  last,  and  forwarded  under  cover, 
addressed  "  To  the  Comptroller  of  the  State,"  per  Henry  Yates,  Esq, 
to  which  (with  the  letter  accompanying  it)  this  deponent  now  refers  for 
particulars. 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  the  185th  section  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  "  general  provisions,"  says  : 

"  Every  inspector  acting  under  any  article  of  this  title,  shall  report  an- 
nually to  the  legislature,  on  or  before  the  1st  day  of  February  in  each  year 
the  quantity,  and  as  near  as  may  be,  the  quality  and  value  of  the  produce, 
provisions,  or  merchandise  inspected  by  him  during  the  year  ending  the  1st 
day  of  January  preceding  the  making  of  such  report,  together  with  the 
amount  of  fees  and  emoluments  derived  from  his  office,  and  shall  also  com- 
municate in  his  report  such  information  possessed  by  him  as  may  tend  to  the 
improvement  of  the  quahty,  or  increase  in  the  quantity  of  the  article  sub- 
ject to  his  inspection." 

And  this  deponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  on  the  24th  of  January 
last,  he  made  his  report  to  the  legislature  in  strict  conformity  to  the  185th 
section,  and  forwarded  it  on  the  same  day  by  William  James,  Esq.  (of  the 
house  of  Wm.  and  John  James,  of  this  city)  under  cover,  addressed  to  the 


43 

hoD.  speaker  of  the  assembly,  which  letter,  this  deponent  delivered  to 
Mr.  James  on  board  the  steamboat  Commerce,  and  it  should  have  reached 
Albany  by  the  26th  or  27th  ult.  casualties  excepted. 

And  thisdeponent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  he  waited  until  the  af- 
ternoon of  Saturday  the  3 1st  ult.  under  the  expectation  of  seeing-  his  re- 
port to  the  leg-islature  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  the  assembly  (as  detail- 
ed in  the  state  paper)  but  being-  disappointed,  this  deponent  forwarded  a 
duplicate  copy  of  said  report,  under  cover,  to  the  "  Hon.  President  of  the 
senate,''  per  mail,  and  which  should  have  reached  its  destination  by  the  2d 
or  3d  inst.     And  further  tliis  deponent  saith  not. 

R.  R.  HENRY. 

Sworn  the  7th  of  February,  A.  D.,  1829,  before  me, 

JUDAH  HAMMOND, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 


[SUPPRESSED.] 

To  his  Excellency  Governor  Throop, 

New-York,  December  31st,  1829. 

Sir, 

In  a  letter  dated  29th  October  last,  which  I  had  occasion  to  write 
to  President  Jackson,  and  which  I  specially  requested  him  to  submit  to 
Secretary  Van  Buren,  (as  "  so  many  of  his  political  friends  are  implicated 
in  the  affair,")  I  say, 

"  The  course  I  shall  take  with  the  clerks  will  probably  be  a  simple  and 
summary  one.  To  present  a  memorial  and  affidavit  to  both  houses  simul- 
taneously stating-  substantially,  that  a  report  purporting  to  be  from  me  in 
my  official  capacity,  as  inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes,  as  entered  in  the 
journals  of  the  Senate,  on  the  4th  February,  1829,  pag-e  153,  I  aver  to  be 
false  and  fraudulent,  in  fact  a  forgery,  because  I  never  made  such  a  com- 
munication as  the  clerk  has  entered  on  their  journals,  and  as  proof  positive 
of  the  fact,  I  refer  to  the  very  document  he  says  he  has  copied,  (and  was 
referred  to  the  committee  on  manufactures,)  which  will  falsify  the  clerk's 
entry  absolutely." 

Also,  that  a  report  purporting-  to  be  from  me,  in  my  official  capacity,  as 
inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes,  as  entered  in  the  journals  of  the  Assem- 
bly on  the  6th  February,  1829,  page  389, 1  aver  to  be  false  and  fraudulent, 
in  fact  a  forgery,  because  I  never  made  such  a  communication  as  the 
clerk  has  entered  in  their  journals,  and  as  proof  positive  of  the  fact,  I  re- 
fer you  to  the  very  document  he  says  he  has  copied,  (and  was  referred  to 
Messrs.  Johnson,  Edgerton  and  Dayton,  a  special  committee,)  which  will 
falsify  the  clerk's  entry  absolutely." 

Happily  for  the  public,  this ''affair''  is  instantly  settled  by  the  clerk  of 
the  Senate  producing  the  letter  and  report  as  entered  in  their  journals : 
and  the  clerk  of  the  Assembly,  the  report  as  entered  in  their  journals,  if 
they  can  I  will  be  in  an  awkward  predicament,  indeed ;  but  if  they  cannot 
the  reverse  will  be  the  case.  Such  transacticns  every  person  should  dis- 
countenance. 


44 

If  the  journals  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  (153'and  389)  are  examined 
with  the  reports,  it  will  be  found  the  respective  clerks  have  suppressed 
the  letters,  and  that  the  clerk  of  the  Assembly  has  loaned  the  letter 
(to  the  speaker)  to  the  clerk  of  the  Senate,  which  (or  the  copy,)  with 
the  address  altered,  he  has  put  in  their  journals  to  make  the  duplicate 
ostensibly  to  have  been  the  original  ;  what  should  the  "  address"  to  an 
"  official"  letter  falsified,  be  called  "  technically,"  for  "  morally"  there  can 
be  no  doubt  ? 

What  pitiful  shifts  and  turns  we  have  to  make  when  we  deviate  from 
the  "  straight  path,"  of  which  I  will  give  you  a  few  cases  in  point  growing 
out  of  this  crooked  business. 

New-York,  January  24th,  1829. 
Sir, 

I  enclose  you  my  report  as  inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes,  for  the 
city  of  New- York,  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter 
17,  article  12,  passed  December  3,  1827. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 
To  the  Honorable  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  Albany. 

New-York,  January  31st,  1829. 
Sir, 

The  above  is  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  the  speaker  of  the  Assembly  enclos- 
ing my  report  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  which  was 
delivered  to  Wm.  James,  Esq.  (of  the  house  of  Wm.  and  John  James,  of 
this  city,)  on  board  the  steam  boat  Commerce,  on  the  24th  inst. 

Not  seeing  it  noticed  in  the  minutes  this  week,  I  am  to  presume  it  has 
miscarried. 

I  enclose  you  the  "  duplicate,"  which  please  have  presented  to  the  house 
over  which  you  preside.     In  great  haste,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant. 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 
To  the  Honorable  the  President  of  the  Senate,  Albany. 

New- York,  February  9th,  1829. 
Sir, 

I  enclose  you  the  memorial  to  which  I  alluded  in  my  report  of  24tli 
ultimo,  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  which 
please  have  submitted  to  the  house  over  which  you  preside. 

I  annex  the  memorial  and  schedule,  containing  matter  which  conclu- 
sively shows,  that  the  honorable  Truman  Hart,  (chairman  of  the  joint 
committee,)  never  could  have  read  the  documents  and  the  statutes  rela- 
tive to  the  inspection  of  ashes,  particularly  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter 
17,  passed  December  3,  1827,  otherwise  he  could  not  conscientiously  have 
reported — 

"Inasmuch  as  the  Revised  Statutes  are  not  understood  as  requiring  in- 
spectors to  account  for  any  unclaimed  ashes  previous  to  the  first  day  of 
May  last,  when  these  statutes  went  into  operation,  and  the  former  statutes 
were  repealed,  your  committee  have  thought  fit  to  provide  for  the  case." 

My  object  has  been  to  save  any  committee  to  whom  the  memorial  may 
be  submitted,  all  trouble  of  research.         I  am,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pol  and  Pearl  ashes. 
To  the  Honorable  Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  Albany. 


15 

ContradictioD,  171, 172,  173,  174,  175,  176  sections  oi  the  Kevised  Statr 
iiles,  chapter  17,  from  which  Mr.  Hart  copied  his  1st,  2d,  3d,  and  4th  sec- 
tions— also,  12th  section  of  the  act  of  25th  February,  1813,  and  17th  sec- 
lion  of  act  of  5th  April,  1822 !!! !  Since  the  days  of  Col.  Burr  the  legis- 
lature have  not  been  taken  more  by  surprise — see  the  memorial  for  de- 
tails. 

New-York,  February  9th,  1829. 
Sir, 

In  a  letter  which  1  had  the  honor  of  addressing"  you  (as  one  of  the 
joint  Committee,)  on  the  8th  November  last,  I  remarked, 

"  As  soon  as  Mr  Hart's  law  has  g-one  through  all  the  legislative  forms, 
I  will  probably  make  a  communication  that  will  excite  some  little  sur- 
prise." 

I  enclose  you  the  memorial  (which  I  alluded  to  in  my  report  of  24th  ult. 
under  the  185th  section,)  open  for  your  perusal,  after  which  please  have  it 
delivered  to  the  speaker.     I  am,  very  respectfully,  sir. 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 
To  the  Honorable  Mr.  Johnson,  of  the  Asssembly,  Albany. 

Note. — I  am  happy  to  find  from  a  letter  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser 
of  this  evening,  that  on  Tuesday  the  6th,  my  report  was  submitted  to  you 
and  Messrs.  Edgerton  and  Dayton. 

I  will  give  you  the  dates  of  letters  to  the  joint  committee,  and  ask  you 
respectfully  were  they  submitted  to  you,  (with  the  enclosures,)  as  one  of  that 
committee,  particularly  the  one  in  which  I  protest  against  Mr.  Hart  and 
Mr.  Mc Michael  acting  or  voting  in  this  business,  as  they  were  not  disin- 
terested persons? 

If  you  have  not  seen  them,  tiiey  should  now  be  called  for,  as  they  con- 
tain important  information,  particularly  the  letter  to  Mr.  Snow  of  the  11th 
November  1826,  as  to  unclaimed  ashes. 

If  my  allegations  (in  whole  or  in  part,)  are  true  or  false,  they  should  be 
attended  to,  for  if  substantially  untrue,  I  should  be  held  up  for  public  exe- 
cration. 
1828. 
October    28,  Letter  to  the  Joint  Committee,  per  Joseph  Cuyler,  Esq. 
"  29,      «  "  "   Wm.  Durant,  Esq. 

'<  31,      "  "  "  Benj.  Woodward,  Esq. 

November     4,      "  «'  '<  Phillip  S.  Parker,  Esq. 

"  8,      "  " 

Forwarded  per  mail  on  9th  February,  1829. 

New- York,  February  20th,  1829. 

Dear  Setou, 

It  is  with  regret  I  have  to  trouble  you  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Johnson  (of  the 
Assembly,)  whether  he  has  received  from  mc  a  package  dated  9th  inst. 
enclosing  a  document  of  that  date  to  the  speaker,  which  was  left  open  for 
his  perusal. 

If  it  has  not  been  received,  it  may  have  been  left  in  the  post  office,  as 
the  postage  was  not  paid,  I  being  informed  that  it  was  not  necessary  as  on 
public  business  that  charge  (to  members)  was  paid  out  of  the  contingent 
fund  of  the  house,  by  the  clerk. 

Should  it  have  been  left  there  on  the  pretext  of  postage  not  being  paid, 
will  you  have  the  goodness  to  take  it  out  and  deliver  it  personally  to  Mr. 
Johnson,  and  I  will  refund  the  amount  to  you. 

Favor  me,  if  you  please,  with  an  answer,  as  I  wish  to  know  to  a  certain- 

7 


40 

ly  it  it  has  reached  Mr.  Johnson  or  the  Speaker.     Will  you  remember  me 
to  all  with  you,  as  I  am  in  haste,  Yours,  &c. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 

Peter  Seton  Henry,  Esq. 

P.  S.  If  you  cannot  see  Mr.  Johnson,  the  speaker  or  the  clerk  can  say 
wh  ther  it  has  been  received.  It  was  mailed  here  to  a  certainty,  and  of 
course  should  have  reached  Albany. 

Per  Mail. 


To  Mr.  Robert  R,  Hennj. 

Albany,  February  27,  1829 • 
My  dear  uncle, 

Absence  from  town,  and  not  being-  able  to  see  Mr.  Johnson; 
lias  prevented  my  answering  your  letter  sooner. 

Mr.  Johnson,  whom  1  saw  this  morning,  informed  me  he  has  not  taken 
jour  letter  out  of  the  post  office  on  account  of  postage.  He  also  informed 
me  that  the  state  does  not  pay  the  postage  of  letters  on  public  business. 

With  his  permission,  I  shall  take  the  letter  out  and  hand  it  to  him. 

In  haste,  yours  truly, 

PETER  SETON  HENRY. 

So  that  its  delivery  on  the  27th  of  February  last  is  reduced  to  a  certain- 
ty, which  is  all  I  wished  to  know,  as  I  then  knew  from  what  had  been  done 
with  documents  by  the  chairman  of  the  special  committee  (Journals  of  the 
Senate,  extra  session,  October  20,  1828,  page  57.)  bythe  chairman  of  the 
joint  committee,  (same  session,  October  30th,  page  65)  by  the  chairman  of 
the  special  committee  of  the  assembly  (same  session  70  and  89)  by  the  comp- 
trollers with  the  letters,  reports,  and  affidavits,  dated  October  22d,  and  23d, 
1828;  the  1st,  13th,  and  21st  of  January,  1829,  bythe  clerk  of  the  se- 
nate with  the  report  and  letter  of  the  24th  and  31st  of  January  last,  (jour- 
nals of  the  senate,  1 5S)  by  the  clerk  of  the  assembly  with  the  report  and 
letter  of  24th  of  January  last  (journals  of  the  assembly,  389)  by  the  spe- 
cial committee  of  the  6th  and  9th  of  February  last  (see  journals  389  and 
and  398)  with  the  letters  and  documents  to  lieut.  gov.  Pitcher, of  the  llth 
of  November,  1828,  (referred  to  in  the  suppressed  part  of  my  report)  sup- 
pressed all,  which  previous  suppressions  I  knew  would  compel  Mr  Johnson 
(and  his  associates  in  committee)  to  suppress  the  memorial  also,  otherwise 
all  the  documents  alluded  to  would  have  to  be  forthcoming,  which  I  deter- 
mined they  should  be  on  the  opening  of  the  navigation,  when  I  intended 
going  personally  to  Albany  to  call  them  up,  had  not  the  apoplectic  stroke 
on  the  Hon.  Truman  Hart  forbade  my  moving  in  the  business  under  his 
deplorable  circumstances. 

Nothing  was  heard  of  the  memorial  for  thirty-eight  days,  until  the  fol- 
lowing appeared  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  for  Tuesday,  71  h  of  April 
last,  from  Mr.  Johnson,  whom  Mr.  Noah  (in  his  paper  of  15th  of  April  last) 
says  is  Col.  Stone's  Albany  correspondent.  The  memorial  must  have 
been  smuggled  through  the  house,  as  I  did  not  see  the  presentation  in  the 
report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  6th  of  April. 


LFrom  our  Correspondent.] 

Albany,  Monday,  April  Qih. 
IN  ASSEMBLY. 

■'  A  memorial  from  Robert  R.  Henry,  Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes 
in  New-York,  was  presented  this  morning  by  the  hon.  speaker.  He  re- 
marked, that  every  citizen  had  a  right  to  petition  the  legislature,  but  he 
did  not  know  how  far  he  was  bound  to  present  all  communications  enclosed 
to  hun.  This  one  reflected  on  the  conduct  of  an  houourable  member  of 
the  other  body,  and  the  house  could  decide  what  course  was  best  to  adopt 
in  relation  to  it.  After  a  few  remarks  Mr  Johnson  moved  that  the  clerk 
communicate  the  said  memorial  to  the  hon.  the  senate,  which  was  done  !" 

Note — Reflected,  indeed,  when  the  charges  of  corrupt  conduct  and  the 
proofs  are  positive  against  the  chairman  of  the  joint  committee,  and  the 
only  way  the  rest  of  the  committee  can  escape  is  by  pleading  "  ignoramus." 

1  was  of  course  all  anxiety  for  the  arrivals  of  the  journals  of  the  assem- 
bly and  senate,  to  ascertain  what  kind  of ''journal  entries"  had  been  made 
by  the  respective  clerks,  and  whether  the  letter  to  the  "honourable  speak- 
er" had  been  "  posted  up"  (as  we  mercantile  men  say)  but  as  I  find  the 
*'  postings"  to  be  pithy  in  the  extreme,  I  will  copy  them  for  the  information 
of  the  public,  (who  cannot  obtain  the  journals)  my  own  convenience,  and 
as  they  are  curiosities  in  themselves, 

[960.] 

Monday,  April  6,  1829. 
IN  ASSEMBLY. 

The  memorial  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes 
of  the  city  of  New- York,  praying  for  certain  amendments  to  the  law  pass- 
ed November  14,  1828,  entitled 

*'  An  act  respecting  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  the  duties 
of  inspectors  and  auctioneers,"  was  read — thereupon  ordered,  that  the 
clerk  communicate  the  said  memorial  to  the  senate,'' !  ! !  ! 

[413.] 

Tuesday,  April  7,  1829. 
IN  SENATE. 

The  memorial  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  relative  to  so  much  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  as  relate  to  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  was  communi- 
cated from  the  assembly,  and  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  judi- 
diciary  "!  !  !  : 

Was  there  ever,  sir,  in  the  legislative  annals  of  this  (or  any  other)  coun- 
try such  an  extraordinary  reference,  of  a  memorial  praying  for  "  certain 
araendnients"  to  a  potash  law  being  sent  from  the  assembly  to  the  senate 
instead  of  being  referred  to  the  appropriate  "  committee  on  manufactures" 
in  both  houses  ?  Its  being  sent  to  the  "  committee  on  the  judiciary"  shows 
there  is  something  rotten  at  the  bottom  of  the  "  affair"  on  the  very  face  of 
the  transaction  ;  and  if  the  contents  of  the  suppressed  memorial  (and  re- 
port) are  allowed  to  transpire,  the  public  will  stare  with  "  saucer  eyes." 

As  the  journals,  reports,  memorials,  and  other  documents  cannot  now  be 
safely  yazood^  I  feel  myself  at  last  on  a  footing  of  equality,  at  least  with  my 
powerful  opponents,  both  in  and  out  of  the  houses,  who  will  be  obliged  to 


48 

come  up  to  the  '■  nog  bolt,"  life,  health,  &c.  granted  ine  by  a  good  pro  - 
vidence  ;  as  the  legislature  are  "bound  in  honour"  to  prevent  "spurious  re- 
ports" from  being  entered  on  their  journals,  and  when  the  party  complain- 
ing avers  the  documents  entered  cannot  be  produced,  and  that  they  are 
false  and  fraudulent  entries,  as  the  reports  themselves  will  show- 
It  frequently  happens  that  "partial  evil"  is  productive  of  "  universal  good,'" 
as  in  my  case,  because  the  members  on  committees  will  see  the  necessity 
(from  tiie  fraud  practised  by  Mr.  Hart)  of  examining  for  themselves,  and 
not  pin  their  faith  so  absolutely  (as  the  joint  committee  appears  to  have  done) 
on  their  chairman.  The  houses  will  see  the  necessity  of  not  adop'ing  so 
rashly,  reports  as  they  did  Mr.  Johnson's  deceptive  one  on  the  9th  of  Fe- 
bruary last,  by  which  the  assembly  refused  to  have  entered  on  their  jour- 
nals the  "emoluments"  (exclusive  of  fees)  of  my  office,  amounting  to 
^354,50,  imperatively  required  to  be  reported  by  the  185th  section.  Both 
houses  will  see  the  necessity  of  maksng  a  rule,  requiring  from  each  mem- 
ber of  a  committee  a  declaration  in  houour,  whether  he  is,  or  i:-,  not  inter- 
ested in  the  question  to  be  submitted.  Also,  that  it  be  expressly  stated  on 
the  journals  whether  the  "  communication"  or  "report,*'  &c.  has  been  read 
entire,  or  by  its  title  only,  and  consequently  whether  it  has  been  in  whole 
or  in  part,  entered  on  the  journals. — See  the  frauds  practised  by  the  clerks 
on  the  members  "  not  in  the  secret,"  and  on  the  public,  with  my  reports. 
And  as  the  comptroller  and  attorney  general  do  not  seem  disposed  to  en- 
force the  177th  and  186th  sections,  I  will,  among  other  amendments,  sug- 
gest remedies  which  no  doubt  will  be  adopted  when  the  legislature  comes 
to  know  that  the  losses  of  the  treasury  from  their  "  neglect"  of  imperative 
duties,  amount  to  at  least  $200,000,  which  the  state  is  justly  and  equitably 
entitled  to  in  the  shape  of  fines  as  a  set-off  against  the  proceeds  of  unclaim- 
ed property  (ashes,  beef,  pork,  sample  flour,"  &c.)  fraudulently  used  and 
converted  to  private  account,  within  thirty  consecutive  years  past,  under 
"  duplicate"  bills  issued  to '' convenient  friends,"  (Van  Wyck,  Wright, 
Remsen,  Conkling,  and  others  who  can  be  named)  under  the  "  discretion- 
ary power."  See  my  report  and  affidavit  of  the  1st  of  January  last,  filed 
with  the  comptroller,  on  which  governor  Van  Buren's  message  is  predicat- 
ed. Also,  that  part  of  my  report,  suppressed  (by  recommendation  of  Mr. 
Johnson)  on  the  9th  of  February  last — the  memorial  (referred  to  the  judi- 
ciary committee)  the  report  on  the  journals  of  the  assembly,  October  20, 
1828.,  but  specially  my  letters  to  gov.  Clinton,  of  March  4,  1825,  of  March 
Gth,  Sept.  29,  and  Oct.  1 3,  1  827,  at  which  early  dates  I  gave  him  instances  of 
the  "abuse  of  power,"  but  I  defeated  my  plans  by  naming  names  and  iden- 
tifying the  interests  of  agents  with  the  inspectors,  which,  as  I  tell  Govern- 
er  Pitcher  on  the  11th  November,  1828,  with  the  private  mark  business, 
brought  a  "  hornet's  nest  about  my  ears." 

"  Oh  that  my  adversary  would  write  a  book,"  said  one  of  old  ;  but  1  say. 
Oh  that  my  adversaries  would  write  "circulars,"  which  '•'flatly  contradict" 
each  other,  and  put  them  on  the  files  of  the  comptroller's  office — would 
make  reports  for  the  state  paper  which  the  journals  of  the  senate  will  show 
to  be  designedly  false  and  fraudulent  if  collated  ;  but  particularly  that  they 
would  make  "  official"  reports  relative  to  "  provisions,  produce,  and  mer- 
chandise," and  the  "  fees"  and  "  emoluments,"  and  solemnly  aver,  that 
they  were  faithfully  mude  ;  which  reports s'uould  be  "  recorded,"  atlnrge  by 
the  clerks  of  the  journals  of  the  senate  and  assembly  where  thev  cannot 
be  yazood,  consequently  can  be  safely  referred  to  (verbally  and  in  writing) 
as  direct  or  collateral  proofs  to  show  legally  or  equitably  the  truth  of  my 
allegations,  and  that  that  "  cha|)ter  of  blunders"  commonly  called  the  Re- 
vised Statutes,  chapter  17,  should  be  amended  so  as  to  prevent  such  "in- 
correct, improper,  and  indiscreet"  reports,  &c.  in  future  :  for  example — 

If  you  turn  to  Mr  Inspector  Snow's  report  (journals  of  the  assembly, 
186  and  314)  your  excellency  will  find  he  says  expressly  : 


49 

"Amount  oi"  emoluments  or  fees  received  during  the  year  {t>6d44,li(], 
irom  which  deduct  store  rents,  clerk  hire,  foremen's  wages,  coopers,  labour- 
ers', with  numerous  contingent  charges." 

And  he  then  assures  the  legislature  (in  his  subsequent  report,  St 4)  that 
be  had  "  faithfully  accounted  for  "  the  amount  of  fees  and  emolument  de- 
rived from  his  office ;"  but  to  show  that  he  and  others  have  not  '*  faithfully" 
accounted,  take  the  following  calculations  predicated  on  oar  respective 
reports  as  they  appear  on  the  journals. 

lleported  by  Snow,  13452  casks,     ;g6544,86  average  .483  page  186 

"  Dumont,       4998      "  2241,33        '^       .4482      «•'     340 

"  Henry,         1766      *'  805,06        '^       .4558      "     389 

Reported,  20,216  casks.     ^9591,23  average,    .466  general. 


Consequently,  that  not  any  "  emolument,"  ("  independently  of  fees.")  » 
included  by  either  of  us  m  the  above  sums,  which  it  was  essential  to  make 
apparent  to  show  the  deceptive  nature  of  the  report  of  Messrs.  Snow  and 
Dumont,  (and  Mr.  McCarthy,),  rendering  the  suppression  ot  my  '*  emolu- 
ments" on  the  journals  of  the  Assembly  (entered  through  mistake  on  the 
journals  of  the  Senate,)  indispensably  necessary  to  shield  them  from  expo- 
sure. 

Estimate  for  Mr.  Snoiv. 

Inspected  13,452  casks.     Average,  .453         -  -  $G544,8G 

From  which  he  says  must  be  deducted  the  "  store  rents, 
clerk's  hire,  foreman's  wages,  coopers,  labourers,  and  numerous 
contingent  charges." 

Store  rents,         -  -  -  at  least     $3,000 

John  Brower,  clerk,  .  .  _  500 

Wright,  deputy,     -  -  -  -         500 

Isaac  Heddy,  foreman,  ^35  per  month,  -  -     420 

Wm.  Chew,  cooper,    $30  «'  -  .         3H0 

Cont.    labour  on  13452  casks  at  least  10  cents  per 

cask,  -  -  -  -  1345,20 

$6125,20 

Net  income,  if  his  report  is  true,         .  .  _  5419, 6fi 

Which,  added  to  the  following  items  he  has  *'  Re- 
membered to  forget''  to  report  to  the  legislature 
under  the  185th  section,  shows  his  real  income. 

Storage  on  6689  casks,  (less  than  half,)  Gs.  $5016,20 

"  Emoluments"  derived  from  extra  cooperage,  con- 
demned casks,  hoops,  marking  and  numbering, 
profit  on  casks,  (putting  the  sales  of  "  unclaimed" 
ashes  under  '^duplicate"  bills  out  of  the  question,) 
say  on  13452  casks,  5  cents,  my  average,  672,60 

Scrapings.  Mr.  Snow  has  reported  8306  casks 
pot  ashes  as  having  been  inspected,  which  gave 
3  per  cent,  of  scrapings,  say  1  cask  ia  33,  conse- 
quently he  has  not  accounted  for  I -33d  part  of 
pot  ashes  inspected,  say  250  casks,  a  46  cents, 
which  gave  fees,  115 

§5503,80 

Net  income  including  "  emoluments"  omitted,  $6223,46 


50 


Estimate  for  Mr.  Dwnont. 

Inspected  4998  casks.     Average  4482  -  -  $2241,3S 

From  which  he  says  "clerk's  hire, labour  and  "store  rent" 
must  be  deducted. 

Store  rent,         .  -  -  at  least,       $1,100 

C.  V.  V,  Leonard,  clerk,  -  -  500 

Wm.  Cantine,  foreraao,  $30  per  month,  360 

cooper.    30         -  -  360 

Cont.  labour  on  4998  casks,  a  10  cents,  499,80 

$2819,80 

Loss  (on  the  business)  if  his  report  is  true,  -  -  $577,47 

Which  taken  from  the  following  items,  which  he  has 
suppressed  in  his  report : 

Storage  on  I  3  his  quantity,  1666  casks,  a  65.  ^1250 

«  Emoluments"  on  the  whole,  4998      '*  a    5  cts.  250 

Scrapings  on  S698  casks  pots.   112     "  a  46  cts.  59.82 

1559,82 

Net  income,  including  "  emoluments"  omitted,  $982,35 


Estimate  for  Mr.  Henry. 

1766  casks  inspected,  (per  journals  of  Assembly,  389)  ave- 
rage .4558,             -             -  -          '  -                       $805,06 
LESS. 
Store  rent,  4  months,  a     $1100  $366,66 
C.  V.  V    Leonard,  4  months,  clerk,  500     166,66 
James  Powers,        4      "       cooper,  360     120 
Cont.  labour  OH  1766  casks,  10  cts.     176,60 


Loss  (on  the  business,)  if  my  report  as  entered  by  Mr.  Sager 

on  the  journals  of  the  Assembly,  389,  is  true,  24,86 

Which  abstracted  from  the  "  emoluments  derived  from 
his  oflBce,"  suppressed  in  the  journals  of  the  Assem- 
bly, 389,  but  entered  in  the  journals  of  the  Senate, 
153,  viz: 

Storage,  (one  quarter,)  -  -  S275 

"  Emoluments,"  for  extra  cooperage,  &c.  79,50 

354,50 

Net  income,  including"  emoluments,"  if  my  report  as  enter- 
ed in  the  journals  of  the  Senate,  153,  is  true,  ^^329,64 

I  solemnly  aver,  sir,  the  reports  to  both  houses,  (excepting  as  to  letters 
to  the  President  and  Speaker.)  are  word  for  word  the  same,  and  are  so 
much  alike  one  might  be  taken  for  the  other. — Why  then  the  discrepen- 
cies.?  Why  should  1  be  made  to  appear  in  the  journals  (to  cover  Messrs. 
Snow,  Dumont  and  McCarthv,  &c.  from  exposure  by  the  by)  to  have  been 
so  base  and  depraved  as  to  report  differently  the  state  of  my  inspection 
business  't  1  appeal  to  the  reports  to  show  they  are  truly  reported,  and 
that  there  is  no  variation  in  them,  allhough  the  letters  are  diJfTerent,  from 
causes  which  will  appear  on  examination,  which  I  must  pray  for,  as  char- 


pi 

acter  is  now  my  only  patrimony,  which  I  cannot  sacrifice  to  save  that  oi: 
others,  who  having  money,  can  do  without  it,  consequently  with  whom  a 
"  little  character"  will  go  a  great  way. 

I  was  regretting  I  had  no  other  course  to  pursue  to  obtain  "  summary" 
redress,  than  by  application  to  the  Houses,  to  have  the  "  journal  entries," 
rectified,  which  would  expose  both  the  clerks ;  but  as  to  the  honorable  Mr- 
Hart  and  Mr.  Johnson,  who  had  lead  them  astray  from  the  '  straight  path,'"" 
I  had  no  commiseration  for  them,  neither  for  the  Comptroller  and  others 
who  would  be  incidentally  exposed.      When  I  was  asked; 

"  Why  regret  ? "     The  clerks  have  not  scrupled  to  record  you  as  a  vil- 
lain, which  you  are,  if  the  reports  are  truly  entered  by  them.      Because 
to  the  Senate  you  have  "officially"  stated  your  income  on  1766  casks  of 
ashes  (fees  and  emoluments  including  storage)  to  have  been  $11 59  56,  and 
to  the  Assembly  at  S805  06  ;  that  I  asked  for  nothing  but  to  have  the 
"journal  entries"  rectified,  and  as  to  consequences,  I  had  no  more  to  do 
with  ihem  than  a  juror  had  with  those  which  might  result  from  his  verdict. 
If  I  was  to  submit  the  reports  and  estimates  of  Mr.  Inspector  Snow 
to  his  clerk,  John  Brower,  Esq.  and  the  report  and  estimate  of  Mr.  Inspec- 
tor Dumont  to  Cornelius  V.  V".  Leonard,  Esq.  his  clerk,  (formerly  mine) 
who  drew  the  report,  I  know  I  would  be  told  by  Mr.  Leonard,  particularly, 
that  on  the  11  th  November  1826,  (when  he  copied  my  letter  to  Mr.  Snow 
relative  to  the  largess  of  100  casks  of  "unclaimed"  ashes  bestowed  on 
Trotter  &  Douglass)  and  on  SOth  April  1828,  when  he  copied  my  letter  to 
Hugh  Maxwell,  Esq.  and  on  many  intermediate  occasions,  he  has  told  me 
substantially,  that  a  law  having  been  abrogated  or  having  expired  by  limi- 
tation, &!.'.  all  accountability  (for  acts  done  or  suffered  to  be  done  however 
illegal)  of  the  inspector,  was  at  an  end  ;  consequently  that  the  act  of  25th 
February  1813  having  been  repealed  by  the  act  of  5th  April  182^;i,  Messrs. 
Snow  and  Cooper  were  not  responsible  to  the  state  for  the  100  casks  of 
"  unclaimed"  ashes  bestowed  by  them  (1  aver  illegally  and  fraudulently) 
to  hold  till  the  original  bill  was  presented  onlv  by  the  owners,  (who,  by  the 
by,  have  never  appeared  to  claim  or  demand  them)  neither  for  the  "un- 
claimed" ashes  abstracted,  alias  cribbed,  from  the  casks  of  absentees,  as 
there  was  no  mention  of  "  scrapings  or  crustings"  in  the  law  of  1813,  al- 
though there  was  in  that  of  1822  ;  and  further,  that  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper, 
and  Bogart^s  commissions  havmg  been  renewed,  (again  and  again)  were, 
in  fact,  acts  of  amnesty  for  all  past  transactions,  even  under  the  act  of 
1822,  (provided  nothing  was  done  on  that  day  before  the  law  expired) 
which  Mr.  L.  said  he  would  not  notice  in  making  out  any  reports  for  Mr. 
Dumont,  under  the  Revised  Statute,  Chapter  17,  having  the  "  sad  mistakes" 
in  the  "  76th  and  177th"  sections,  &c.  in  view,  the  latter  of  which  allowed 
the  inspector  to  commute  for  the  "  unclaimed"  property  for  the  petty  sum 
of  ^250  until,  to  their  utter  astonishment,  the  consideration  money  was 
raised  (by  Mr.  Butler)  to  S2500  and  imprisonment.     See  my  Letter  and 
Affi.iavit  of  21st  January  last  to  Comptroller  Wright,  who  appears  to  be 
determined  to  defeat  my  views  for  the  public  good. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  Messrs.  Brower  and  Leonard,  and  others,  would 
also  now  tell  me,  that  since  the  above  repoits  were  made,  Messrs.  Snow, 
Dumont,  Cooper,  and  Bogart's  commissions  have  been  renewed,  which 
precludes  any  inquiry  relative  to  their  reports  made  previously  ;  but  should 
any  malpractices  have  been  committed  since  the  renewal  of  the  commis- 
sions in  March  last,  that  would  alter  the  case  entirely ;  and  should  I  pro- 
duce the  following  written  evidences  of  them,  (which  show  I  can  oral 
proofs)  I  would  then  be  told,  an  inspector  general  will  be  nominated  to  the 
Senate  (immediately  on  the  meeting  of  the  legislature)  by  your  excellency, 
which  would  supersede  all  our  commissions,  and  be  a  quietus  to  ever}' 
thing. 

Tf  the  executive  and  legislative  autiiorities  will  even  indirectlv  sanction 


such  palpable  frauds  and  evasions  of  law  as  are  detailed  in  the  foUowmg^ 
letters,  when  officially  made  known  to  them,  I  must  submit  of  course ;  as  it 
will  show  there  is  some  truth  in  what  the  Hon.  Mr.  Leigh  and  the  Hon. 
Mr.  Randolph  have  said  (see  New-York  Daily  Advertiser  of  14th  Novem- 
ber last)  in  the  Virginia  convention. 


[No.  156.] 

25th  September,  1 82y. 
Dear  bn; 

I  think  the  following,  in  some  measure,  accounts  for  the  zeal  of  some  of 
Mr.  Snow's  friends,  for  which  reason  I  communicate  it. 

t  was  yesterday  informed,  by  a  man  of  undoubted  veracity,  that  it  is  Mr. 
Snow's  practice,  when  inspecting  small  parcels  of  ashes,  to  collect  the 
scrapings  as  in  other  cases,  but  not  to  account  for  them ;  and  that  he  dis- 
poses of  them  in  rectifying  the  errors  of  his  clerks,  and  restoring  the  value 
of  such  as  he  has  legally  accounted  for,  that  remain  with  him  until  it  is 
damaged  by  mixing  some  of  his  "stock"  with  it,  and  that  on  other  occasions 
he  allows  men  in  his  employ  to  sell  it,  and  divide  the  prize  amongst  them. 

Tf  it  was  possible  that  Mr.  Snow  was  ignorant  that  he  is  bound  by  law 
and  oath  to  have  such  scrapings  advertised  once  a  year,  and  sold,  and  tlie 
proceeds  paid  into  the  state  treasury,  I  would  recommend  to  him  in  future 
to  return  such  scrapings  to  the  barrels  from  whence  they  came,  for  hones- 
ty's sake,  that  the  real  owners  may  not  be  defrauded,  and  he  may  escape 
the  just  censure  of  all  who  are  not  immediately  benefited  by  (to  say  the 
least)  such  unlawful  proceedings. 

Yours  respectfully, 
[Signed]  N.  CONKLING. 

R.  R.  Henry,  Esq. 


[No.  157.] 

New- York,  26th  September,  1829. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  this  morning  went  to  the  office  of  Messrs.  Hart,  Herrick,  &&  Co.  with 
a  Mr.  Thayer,  the  owner  of  15  barrels  of  ashes,  the  bill  and  copy  of  which 
1  delivered  them  yesterday,  accompanied  by  a  bill  for  the  scrapings. 

One  of  the  clerks  asked  Mr.  Thayer  if  those  Avere  not  old  ashes,  and  on 
his  receiving  for  answer  they  were  made  this  summer,  he  replied  he  could 
not  see  how  they  yielded  so  much  scrapings. 

I  then  told  him  that  ashes  coming  to  our  office  contained  no  more  scrap- 
ings than  those  sent  to  other  places  for  inspection,  but  that  we  always  ac- 
counted for  what  there  was.  He  then  informed  me,  in  an  under  tone,  that 
lie  did  not  speak  on  that  account,  but  it  was  Mr.  Cooper's  practice  with 
Ihem  not  to  account  for  separate  parcels  of  scrapings,  but  to  let  them  ac- 
cumulate until  they  amounted  to  a  full  barrel,  or  two  or  three  barrels,  and 
then  give  them  a  bill  for  the  whole.     Comment  is  needless. 

Yours  respectfully, 
[Signed]  N.  CONLKING. 

R.  R.  Henry,  Esq. 


As  to  the  inspectors,  1  am  aware  that  Hart's  5th  section  (unless  repealed 
on  the  principle  of  its  being  fraudulently  obtained)  Ic^galizes  all  (ho  illeg-ol 


53 

and  irauduient  sales  and  conversions  up  to  its  date,  the  14th  November 
1828,  if  not  to  the  14th  May  1829,  the  six  months  given  them  by  the  act  to 
pay  the  proceeds  of  "  unclaimed"  ashes,  (which  the  joint  committee  say 
they  have  undoubtedly  in  possession  to  a  large  amount)  not  a  cent  of  vt^hich 
is  now  in  the  treasury.  I  am  also  aware  that  by  their  mere  averment  that 
they  have  paid  over  such  proceeds  to  the  owners,  without  naming  them,  is 
prima  facie  evidence  that  they  have  done  so,  till  the  contrary  is  shown  in  a 
court  oi  law  or  equity.  I  am  also  aware,  that  by  the  comptroller  accepting 
returns  under  the  4th  section  of  Hart's  law,  and  illegally  dispensing  with 
those  required  by  the  6th  section,  and  declining  to  report  inspectors  of 
*' provisions,  produce,  or  merchandise,"  who  are  "- defaulters.'' un  er  the 
174th,  175th,  or  176th  sections,  they  are  released  from  ihe  penalties  under 
the  6th  and  11th  seciions  of  Hart's  act,  (as  amended  by  the  Honourable 
Benjamin  F.  Butler,  see  my  letter  of  11th  September,  1828,  to  him)  and 
the  177th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute.  I  am  also  aware,  that  by  the 
attorney  general  declining  to  prosecute  not  only  those  who  are  partially 
but  also  totally  delinquent  under  the  lo5th  section,  (agreeably  to  the  186th 
section)  that  they  are  also  virtually  released  from  that  penalty,  and  that  by 
the  appointment  of  an  inf  pector  general,  we  will  one  and  all  be  released 
from  every  responsibility,  excepting  when  original  bills  or  receipts  can  be 
produced.  Yet  I  know  that  all  .these  illegal  escapes  (hair-breadth  ones) 
may  all  be  prevented  merely  by  your  excellency  declining  to  nominate  to 
the  senate  an  inspector  general,  until  the  legislature  are  made  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  this  official  communication,  the  charges  in  which  I 
stand  ready  to  substantiate  against  inspectors  and  all  others  (directly  or 
indirectly)  implicated  with  them  both  in  and  out  of  the  houses,  if  either  of 
them  will  venture  to  call  for  a  legislative  inquiry,  but  they  dare  not  do  so, 

A  person  in  an  official  station  may  act  most  illegally,  if  not  corruptly; 
and  yet  (directly)  not  touch  a  cent  of  money.     For  examples  : 

A  debtor  fails,  and  gets  his  discharge  ;  after  a  lapse  of  years,  he  finds  a 
former  creditor  in  a  situation  to  give  or  obtain  for  him  an  office  of  "honour, 
trust,  or  profit :"  application  is  made  for  it,  and  a  "  broad  bint"  is  given, 
that  i{  he  would  renew  the  obligation  to  pay  eventually  out  of  the  profits 
(the  whole  or  part)  of  the  "  old  debt,"  it  could  be  obtained  for  him,  which 
overture  is  of  course  acceded  to,  being  so  evidently  for  his  advantage. 
Although  not  a  cent  of  cash  is  to  be  immediately  paid,  (only  out  of  the 
profits  of  an  office  to  be  obtained)  and  although  many  will  say  that  the 
creditor  had  a  right  to  avail  himself  of  this  fortuitous  circumstance  to  ob- 
tain his  debt,  yet  I  contend  it  would  be  as  illegal  a  transaction  (to  say  the 
least)  as  Inspector  Bogart's  sale  of  the  reversion  of  his  office  to  Roderick 
Sedgwick,  Esq.  in  August  1824,  for  ^500  per  annum,  (for  his  '-working 
tools,"  the  nommal  consideration)  on  the  discovery  of  which,  Mr.  Bogart 
had  a  "  broad  hint"  given  hini,  that  out  of  respect  for  his  father  and  family 
his  resignation  would  be  accepted,  which  was  accordingly  sent  in,  and  I  was 
appointed  (m  vacation)  to  fill  bis  place.  Your  excellency,  no  doubt,  will 
find  the  documents  relating  to  "  this  affair"  on  the  executive  files,  and  to 
''  another  affair"  in  an  official  letter  to  the  comptroller  of  18th  June  last. 

Again.  Major  Samuel  Cooper  receives  information  that  a  quantity  of 
ashes  were  shipped  or  shipping  at  or  near  J;ector-street  wharf,  contrary  to 
the  10th  section  of  the  act  of  5th  April  1822,  which  it  was  his  duty  to  have 
seized,  instead  of  which  he  sends  a  written  prohibition,  which  was  served 
on  the  mate  of  the  vessel  after  dark,  by  Mr.  John  H.  Remsen,  then  in  the 
Major's  employ,  the  object  of  which  was  to  compel  the  owner  or  agent  to 
seek  a  personal  interview,  which  took  place  the  ensuing  day,  when  $50  was 
offered  (the  probable  amount  of  the  fees  of  inspection,  if  made)  for  the 
privilege  to  complete  the  shipment,  which  the  Major  refused  to  accept ; 
but  a  "  broad  hint"  was  given  to  the  agent,  that  if  he  would  patronize  him 
by  giving  a  preference  to  his  inspection-bills,  he  might  go  on,  which  was 
acceded  to  readily,  as  the  agent  found  the  inspector  would  at  all  times  be 

8 


willing-  to  concert  the  old  ashes  into  fresh  ashes,  by  a  ieg-erdernam  oper^ 
tion,  minutely  detailed  in  my  circular  letter  of  19th  March  1828,  a  copy  of 
which  your  excellency  will  find  in  the  hands  of  the  comptroller  or  the 
chairman  of  the  joint  committee,  which  contains  "  secrets  worth  knowing." 
Again.  Messrs.  Snow,  Bog-art,  and  Cooper,  see  on  a  cask  a  red  D, 
which  is  the  "  sign"  the  ashes  belong  to  "  country  innocents,"  have  not 
been  inspected  in  Albany,  and  that  the  scrapings  are  not  to  be  noted  on 
the  copies,  but  set  aside  for  the  benefit  of  whom  it  may  concern  ;  and  it  is 
said  when  the  D  was  black,  the  "  sign"  was  that  the  absentees'  "  eye  teeth" 
were  cut,  and  the  scrapings  must  be  noted  on  the  copies ;  that  when  "  hie- 
roglyphic or  allusive  private  marks  or  characters"  appeared  on  the  casks, 
the  "  sign"  was,  the  ashes  have  been  inspected  in  Albany,  (although  not 
branded  according  to  law)  which  practice  is  continued  down  to  the  moment 
I  pen  this  paragraph,  contrary  to  law,  which  1  stand  ready  to  prove,  and 
for  sinister  purposes.  See  my  communications  to  Governors  Clinton  and 
Pitcher,  the  Comptrollers,  Joint  and  Special  Committees :  the  documents 
in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  McCall,  Norton,  Broughton,  Granger,  Maynard, 
Hayden,  Hazelstone ;  but  especially  the  letters  of  4th  and  8th  November, 
]  828,  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Johnson — letters  in  the  hands  of  the  Comptroller, 
dated  6th  March  1827  and  t8th  June  1829— letters  to  the  Hon.  John  C. 
Spencer  and  Benjamin  F.  Butler  of  11th  September  1828,  &c. 

Again.  Mr.  Inspector  Snow  is  applied  to,  to  cancel  his  "  old  bills''  and 
issue  "  new  ones,"  altering  the  brands  to  suit.  Consideration,  not  money, 
only  exclusive  patronage.  The  fees  allowed  Major  Cooper  and  the  junior 
inspectors,(Remsenand  Dumont)  for  similar  services, were  generally  12|cts. 
saving  to  the  owner  or  agent  36  cents  per  cask,  besides  converting  his  old 
ashes  into  new  ashes.  See  my  circular  of  19th  March  1828,  and  my  letter 
to  Hugh  Maxwell,  Esq.  of  30th  April  1828,  (in  the  hands  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee) who  declined  acting,  (on  31st  May  1828)  on  the  principle  that 
"  cheating"  (in  certain  cases)  had  been  ruled  "  not  to  be  fraudulent." 
See  his  letters  to  Henry  Eckford,  Esq.  in  Noah's  Enquirer  of  November 
1827. 

Again.  The  comptroller  permits  Mr.  Inspector  Dumont  to  file  his  returns 
Under  my  175th  section  with  the  clerk  of  the  Assembly  instead  of  in  his  of- 
fice, to  oblige  Mr.  Dumont,  who  wishes  to  have  something  on  the  journals 
of  1829,  page  340,  &c.  to  counteract  my  *'  Mr.  Dumont  do.  do.  do."  to  Mr. 
Snow.  See  journals  of  the  Assembly,  extra  session,  1828.  page  63,  also  to 
oblige  the  inspector's  uncle,  collector  Swartwout,  and  to  give  Mr.  Dumont 
a  "  factitious"  character  as  an  "inspector,''  and  induce  your  excellency 
(some  days  hence)  to  nominate  him  to  the  Senate  as  Inspector  General. 
No  money  enters  into  the  transaction,  but  that  it  is  not  an  "evasion,  but  a 
palpable  violation''  of  the  175th  section,  will  be  apparent  on  its  examina- 
tion, which,  if  sanctioned  by  the  legislature,  renders  the  inspection  law  a 
"  dead  letter." 

Again.  The  attorney  general  has  a  duty  imperatively  enjoined  on  hira 
by  the  186th  section,  to  prosecute  all  "defaulters"  under  the  185th  sec- 
tion, (who  are  totally  or  partially  so,)  which  he  has  totally  "  neglected''  to 
oblige  Messrs.  Lowerie  and  other  delinquents  mentioned  in  the  list  which 
will  follow.  Not  a  cent  of  money  enters  into  "this  affair,''  yet  it  is  a  most 
flagrant  violation  of  duty. 

The  following  are  the  charges  I  make  and  stand  ready  to  support,  if  any 
of  the  persons,  directly  or  indirectly  implicated,  will  venture  the  hazard 
of  calling  for  an  inquiry,  which  they  will  not  do,  as  they  stand  "self  convic- 
ted" by  the  documents  alluded  to  in  the  charges,  putting  the  oral  testimo- 
ny out  of  the  question,  which  will  be  still  more  conclusive. 

1st.  The  comptroller  as  such,  and  as  trustee,  receives  from  me  ofiicially 
important  communications,  (they  will  be  admitted  to  be  such  when  examin- 
oi.)  dated  22d  and  2Sd  Ocfoher,  1S28.  and  Ist,  ICth  and  ?.1st   Jann^rV 


^8^*y,  which  should  have  been  laid  before  the  legislature,  (as  governoi' 
Vao  Buren's  message  relative  to  "  discretionary  power"  was  predicated  on 
one  or  more  of  them,)  but  the  Comptroller  finding  if  he  did,  that  the  hon- 
orable Truman  Hart  would  be  forthwith  expelled,  and  his  associates  in  the 
joint  committee  would  be  subjected  to  a  vote  of  censure,  he  withheld 
them,  in  consequence  of  which  the  5th  section  of  Hart's  law  of  14th  No- 
vember, 1828,  stands  unrepealed  with  all  the  other  imperfections  in  the 
laws,  particularly  in  the  64th,  76th,  171st,  174th  and  176th  sections  of  the 
Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17. 

2d.  The  Comptroller,  by  withholding  the  above  official  documents,  (also 
alluded  to  in  the  suppressed  part  of  my  report  of  24th  January  last) 
enabled  the  honorable  Mr.  Johnson  to  hoodwink  the  members  of  the 
Assembl}  ("not  in  the  secret'')  on  the  9th  February,  1829,  and  induced 
them  to  reject  ihe  "  emoluments  derived  frpm  his  office,"  (see  journals  389 
and  398,)  although  imperatively  required  to  be  reported  "  independent 
of  the  fees." 

3d.  The  Comptroller,  by  withholding  the  above  official  documents, 
(also  alluded  to  in  my  memorial.)  enabled  Mr.  Johnson  and  the  clerks  to 
hoodwink  the  members  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  "not  in  the  secret,"^ 
on  the  6th  and  7th  April  last.  See  journals  960  and  413,  also  Mr.  John- 
son's letter  in  Colonel  Stone's  Commercial  of  7th  April  last,  which  im- 
prudent and  impolitic  letter  discloses  the  deceptive  nature  of  said  "journal 
entries.'' 

4th.  The  Comptroller  has  a  duty  most  imperatively  enjoined  on  him, 
(he  "shall,"  not  may  report,)  by  the  177th  section,  to  report  all  in- 
spectors of  "  provisions,  produce  and  merchandise,"  who  are  defaulters, 
under  m\  174th,  175th  or  1 76th  sections,  (Hart's  6th  and  11th  sections 
amended  by  Butler)  to  district  attornies,  which  he  has  neglected  to  do ; 
but  in  lieu  of  that  duty  he  has  issued  a  circular  to  delinquents  of  the  11th 
July  last,  maugre  the  ''  circular''  of  his  predecessor,  of  8th  January  last, 
which  is  a  "flat  contradiction"  to  the  hypothesis  assumed  for  issuing  his. 
Consequences. 

If  there  are  in  the  state  one  hundred  "  defaulters,"  the  loss  to  the  treasu- 
ry in  the  shape  of  fines,  is  250,000  dollars,  added  to  which  on  the  first 
.January  next,  the  inspectors  who  have  escaped  will  be  again  "  defaulters" 
rendering  the  inspection  law  by  this  assumption  of"  discretionary''  power, 
(no  where  granted  to  him  even  by  construction,)  a  "  dead  letter"  practi- 
cally. 

5th.  The  Comptroller  has  winked  or  connived  at  the  filing  my  oath  No. 
175,  with  the  clerk  of  the  Assembly,  under  the  185th  section,  (instead  of 
his  office,)  by  Mr  Inspector  Dumont  (a  nephew  of  Collector  Swartwout,) 
by  which  finesse  or  evasion  of  the  law,  the  oath  is  extra  judicial  ;  and  to 
show  it  is  a  designed  evasion,  Mr.  Dumont  dare  not  venture  to  file  the 
same  oath,  word  for  word,  in  the  Comptroller's  office,  under  my  175lh 
section,  as  it  would  then  be  judicial  or  agreeable  to  the  "general  provi- 
sions" of  the  17th  chapter  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

6th.  The  attorney  general  has  an  imperative  duty  imposed  on  him  by 
the  186th  section,  to  prosecute  all  inspectors  of  ''  provisions,  produce  and 
merchandise"  who  are  "  delinquents,"  under  the  185th  section  ;  although 
the  journals  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  show  him  that  every  inspector  in 
the  state,  save  one,  are  totally  or  partially  "defaulters,"  (designedly  so,  as 
they  knew  they  had  only  200  dollars  to  pay  for  "neglect,")  yet  he  has  wil- 
fully avoided  the  performance  of  this  important  duty,  maugre  the  1 86th 
section,  and  my  official  letter  and  affidavit  of  7th  February  last. 

Consequences. — If  there  are  one  hundred  "  defaulters"  throughout  the 
state  ,the  pecuniary  loss  to  the  treasury  is  ^20,000,  which  forfeitures  not 
being  exacted,  no  attention  of  course  will  be  paid  to  the  185th  section  in 
future,  further  than  suits  the  interest  or  convenience  of  the  inspector.     I 


5(i 

specially  refer  to  the  suppressed  parts  of  my  report  oi  24th  January  iasi. 
for  important  information  on  this  very  subject ;  also  the  memorial  which 
was  supplementary  to  it.  See  also,  the  letter  and  affidavit  to  the  attorney 
general,  of  7th  February  last,  for  further  details. 

7th.  The  clerk  of  the  senate  has  put  into  his  hands  an  "  official'^  report 
from  me  as  inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  enclosed  in  a  letter  dated  31st 
January,  1829,  addressed  to  the  president  of  the  senate  (alluding  to  the 
suppression  of  the  original  in  the  assembly)  which  letter  with  five  half  sheets 
containing  the  most  important  matter  in  the  report,  he  suppresses,  and 
substitutes  in  lieu  of  the  letter  the  one  written  to  the  speaker  of  the  assem- 
bly with  its  "  address  altered,"  so  as  to  make  the  "  duplicate"  ostensibly  ap- 
pear to  be  the  '^orginal".  Consider  ;tion,  not  money,  but  to  save  the  Hon. 
Truman  Hart  from  expulsion  (whose  vote  as  in  the  case  of  Gen.  Ward,  the 
"  Lobby"  members  could  not  dispense  with)  and  Messrs.  Enos  Woodward 
and  others,  from  a  '•  vote  of  censure"  for  having  sanctioned  the  report  and 
bill  presented  to  the  senate  by  Mr.  flart  as  chairman  (on  30th  October, 
1  828,  journals  of  extra  session  65)  of  the  joint  committee. 

8th.  The  clerk  of  ihe  assembly  has  put  into  his  hands  an  ''  official"  report 
from  me  as  inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  inclosed  in  a  letter  to  the  speak- 
er, dated  January  24,  18:29.  The  clerk  suppressed  the  letter  (which  it  ap- 
pears he  loans  to  have  put  in  the  journals  of  the  senate)  alters  the  caption 
of  the  report,  and  further  suppresses  five  half  sheets,  containing  the  most 
important  parts  of  the  report,  and  he  enters  the  residue  on  the  journals  as 
the  entire  report — see  journals  389.  Consideration,  not  money,  but  to  save 
the  Hon.  Truman  Hart  from  expulsion  (oblige  the  "  Lobby"  members)  and 
save  the  Hon.  Messrs.  Johnson,  Hart,  Belding  Wallis,  and  P'enton,  (also 
others)  from  a  "  vote  of  censure"  for  having  sane  tioned  the  report  and  bill 
above  mentioned,  and  Messrs.  Johnson,  Hart,  and  Wallis  a  "  special  com- 
mittee," for  their  report  of  November  11,  1828,  page  89,  in  which  they  say 
"that  the  committee  have  examined  the  bill,  prepared  certain  amendments, 
with  which  they  see  no  reason  why  the  same  should  not  be  passed  into  a 
law."  ^ 

No  wonder,  that  after  making  the  above  report,  that  Messrs.  Johnson, 
Hart,  and  Wallis,  were  alarmed  on  reading  my  report  of  24th  January  last, 
and  joined  their  influence  with  others  to  induce  the  clerk  of  the  assembly  to 
make  the  false  and  fraudulent  entry  on  the  journals  p.  389,  which  your  ex- 
cellency will  perceive  rendered  the  subsequent  ones  of  9th  of  February, 
398.  and  of  the  6th  April,  960,  indispensably  necessary  for  his  own  and 
other's  preservation ;  but  mark  the  finger  of  Providence  in  all  this.  The 
very  attempts  they  have  one  and  all  been  making  to  suppress  reports,  me- 
morials, letters,  Uc.  since  4th  March,  1825,  will  have  a  tendency  to  bring 
all  forward,  for  it  is  impossible  that  the  next  legislature  can  or  will,  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  sanction  acts,  which  "morally,"  if  not  ''technically," 
amount  to  forgeries.  Public  and  private  curiosity  is  and  will  be  excited 
to  see  these  "  much  dreaded"  reports,  memorials,  &c.  and  the  *'  sovereign 
people''  must  be  gratified. 

In  the  6th  charge,  (against  the  attorney  general)  I  say  "  That  every  in- 
spector in  the  state  (save  one)  are  totally  or  parlia!ly  defaulters  ;"  to  prove 
which  important  assertion  1  appeal  to  the  journals  from  which  J  have  taken 
the  following  list  (adding  those  "  totally  dehnquent"  as  far  as  my  know- 
ledge extends,  but  unquestionably  there  are  many  others  not  mentioned,) 
from  which  your  excellency  will  see  the  powerful  interests  brought  to  bear 
on  the  comptroller  and  attorney  general,  to  prevent  their  doing  their  duty 
under  the  177th  and  186th  sections,  until  an  inspector  general  is  appointed, 
when  as  ex-inspectors  we  will  be  freed  from  responsibilities. 


>i 


JOURNALS  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY 


>.\lbany 

Flour  and  Meal 

Jasper  Keeler 

343 

Noemoiumea^ 

Neiv-York  Domest.  Spirits 

A,  Dally 

306 

<c 

<( 

Flaxseed 

J.  K.  Townsend 

124 

u 

Albany 

Domest.  Spirits 

S.  W.  Johnson 

922 

u 

Niagara 

Beef  and  Pork, 

Sys.  Russell 

927 

c; 

Westchester           " 

Henry  Strange 

103 

(C 

Greene 

'• 

N.  Wilson 

412 

cc 

Monroe 

a 

John  Brace 

317 

cc 

Oneida 

ii 

Wm.  Barber 

96 

cc 

Rensselaer 

i( 

G.  Smith 

404 

(: 

{( 

a 

E.  L.  Broughton 

411 

Ct 

u 

a 

Horace  Turner 

417 

cc 

Columbia 

<i 

J.  Rogers 

384 

cc 

Madison 

(C 

J.  Ingersoll 

726 

cc 

Onondaga 

(C 

J.  Sloan, jun. 

431 

cc 

Westchester         *' 

N.  Brown,  jr. 

667 

cc 

New-York 

(C 

A.  W.  Youle 

107 

C( 

<< 

(( 

James  Lowerie 

defaulter 

a 

(C 

Philo  Lewis 

cc 

a 

a 

Henry  Howard 

cc 

ct 

<t 

Wilson 

cc 

(C 

<c 

Jacob  Shumway 

C( 

<i 

Leather 

Nich's  Anthony 

635 

No  emoPnt 

it 

(C 

Leek  &  Co. 

389 

cc 

Albany 

Hops 

E.  A.  Le  Breton 

164 

cc 

New-York 

<c 

<c 

defaulter 

Erie 

Leather 

John  Dobson 

1241 

No  emolument. 

Kings 

Lumber 

Erastus  Smith 

314 

cc 

a 

<c 

Benj.  Meeker 

315 

cc 

Monroe 

<: 

Abner  Hubbard 

316 

cc 

Rensselaer, 

a 

Charles  Leman 

317 

c; 

a 

c 

Ed.  Turner 

343 

cc 

a 

(C 

Elias  Disbrow 

367 

c: 

i( 

(C 

Nich's.  Challis 

380 

cc 

New-York 

(C 

Abm.  A.  Slover 

163 

cc 

(C 

cc 

Jacob  Lockman 

164 

a 

(C 

cc 

Peter  Coney 

187 

a 

u 

Fish 

Herman  Scofield 

Defaulter. 

(( 

(( 

Thomas  Moore 

CI 

(( 

Fish&L.  O. 

Wm.  D.  Morgan 

ct 

Niagara 

S.  &  Heading 

SyPs.  Russell 

727 

No  emolu'nts. 

New-York 

Pot  &  Pearl  A. 

Robt.  Snow 

186  : 

314        » 

C( 

(( 

Wm.  Dumont 

340 

ct 

(C 

it 

Sam'l.  Cooper 

Defaulter 

•>( 

cc 

John  H.  Remsen 

cc 

^  No  emolum't 

<c 

iC 

R.  R.  Henry  389, 398,  960 

>       on  the 

N     Journals. 

Albany 

tc 

John  Stoddart, 

411  No  emoluments. 

Hudson 

.c 

defaulter. 

Troy 

C( 

cc 

Utica 

(C 

cc 

Niagara 

c; 

58 


JOURNALS  OF  THE  SENATE. 

New-York  Flour  &  Meal        Rich'd.  M'Carthy     93    No  emolum't. 
Troy  "  Defaulter 

Rensselaer  Beef  and  Pork,     D.  D.  Forest,  jun.       422     No  emo't. 

NewYork,  JiUmber,  James  McNeilson,     433  No  enriolum't. 

"  Pot  &  P.  A.         R.  R.  Henry  153,  413  repor.  hisemoPnts. 

"  From  which  officially  appears,"  that  the  "  poor  inspector"  is  the  only 
one  in  the  state  of  New-York  who  has  rrpo'  ted  the  "emoluments  derived 
from  his  office,"  although  imperatively  required  by  the  185th  section  for 
wise  purposes  to  be  reported  "independently"  of :  and  separate)  from  the  fees, 
as  the  section  says  "  Every  inspector  acting-  under  any  article  of  this  title 
shall  report  annually  to  the  legislature,  and  on  or  before  the  1st  day  of  Fe- 
bruary in  each  year  the  quantity,  and  as  near  as  may  be,  the  quality  and 
value  of  the  produce,  provisions,  or  merchandise  inspected  during  the  year 
ending  the  first  day  of  January  next  preceding  the  making  of  such  report, 
together  with  the  amount  of  fees  and  emoluments  derived  from  his  office, 
and  shall  also  communicate  in  his  report  such  information  possessed  by 
him  as  may  tend  to  the  improvement  of  the  quality  or  increase  in  the  quan- 
tity of  the  articles  subject  to  his  inspection." 

Section  186.  "  Every  inspector  who  shall  not  comply  with  the  provisions 
of  the  preceding  section,  shall  forfeit  for  each  offence  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
dollars,  to  be  recovered  by  the  attorney  general  to  the  use  of  the  people  of 
this  state." 

Inspector  of  flour  and  meal. — He  reports  to  the  Senate  on  23d  January, 
last  page,  93,  634,363  barrels  and  hogsheads  of  (wheat,  rye,  buckwheat, 
and  corn)  "  flour  and  meal,"  whi  h,  at  the  moder  ite  average  of  2^  ounces 
per  cask,  gave  of  sample  "flour  and  meal,"  99,1  19  lbs.  weight,  equal  to 
506  casks,  not  an  ounce  of  which  is  reported  as  "  emolument''  by  the  said 
inspector. 

In  speaking  with  a  broker  on  the  subject,  he  admitted  the  "  sample  flour 
and  meal"  had  seldom  been  demanded  by  the  owner  or  agent  from  the 
inspector,  but  that  he  gives  it  away.  To  whom?  No  doubt  to  his  men, 
and  perhaps  in  part  payment  of  wages,  or  what  is  tantamount  to  it,  obtains 
their  services  at  reduced  rates,  the  "  flour  and  meal"  being  perquisite  to 
their  office. 

It  equitably,  I  contend,  belongs  to  neither  the  owner,  agent  or  inspector, 
but  to  the  purchaser,  because  he  pays  for  196  lbs.  but  gets  only  195  lbs. 
13  12  oz. ;  consequently  the  "  sample  flour  and  meal"  is  justly  his. 

Take  the  value  of  the  506  casks  at  ^4,  nnd  the  "  emolument"  to  some- 
body is  ^2024.  As  700,000  casks  have  t»o  doubt  been  inspected  the  year 
ending  1st  Jr»nuary  1829,  (in  '^  ew-York,  Albany,  and  Troy)  at  least 
1,000,000  barrels  may  be  expected  this  year,  which  at  an  average  of  2^ 
ozs.,  will  give  156.250  lbs.  weight,  equal  to  800  casks  at  ^4,  equal  ^3200, 
a  handsome  "  emolument"  this  even  if  we  estimate  half  the  amount,  and 
nobody  the  wiser  that  Mr.  Somebody  had  perquisites  to  the  amount  of  16s 
per  cent,  on  his  "  legal"  fees  Can  any  thing  show  more  conclusively  the 
wisdom  of  the  185lh  section  requiring  the  "  emoluments"  to  be  reported 
"  independently  of  fees,"  and  the  reason  mine  was  suppressed  in  the 
Assembly  ? 

I  have  been  threatened  with  personal  consequences  in  case  I  interfered 
with  the  "  emoluments"  derived  from  the  "  offs  and  ends"  of  beef,  pork, 
sample  flour,  &c. ;  but  I  have  jocosely  said  they  unfortunately  had  got  hold 
of  the  "  wrong  sow  bv  the  ear:''  and  I  have  ironically  remarked,  that  as  1 


59 

Aui  neither  to  have  '•  art  or  part"  hereafter  in  the  inspectiou  of  either 
«'  provisions,  produce,  or  merchandise,"  I  must  again  become  a  dealer  ia 
some  shape;  and  as  I  was  repeatedly  cheated  when  a  *' country  merchant," 
I  would  protect  myself  and  other  absentees  at  home  and  abroad,  by  amend- 
ments, now  that  1  personal!)  know  the  modes  and  manner  we  had  been 
fraudulently  deprived  of  1-33  part  of  all  the  potashes  we  had  sent  to  this 
market,  by  the  finesse  of  omitting  the  scrapings  on  the  copies,  a  practice 
still  m  existence,  1  aver,  and  stand  ready  to  prove. 

For  the  glass  house  in  Ulster  county  only,  one  of  the  concern,  Mr.  Jared 
Peck,  says  he  has  purchased  unmerchantable  or  damaged  ashes  (scrapings, 
crustiogs,  &c.)  to  average  150  casks  per  annum,  for  15  years  past,  and 
principally  directly  from  inspectors  and  their  men ;  and  that  his  total 
purchases  from  inspectors  of  beef,  pork,  and  ashes,  could  not  have  been 
less  than  ^50,000  !  ! !     What  "  cribbing"  from  casks  oi  absentees  !  !  !  ! 

Let  the  inspector  be  required  to  "  give"  the  ''  sample  flour  and  meal" 
over  to  the  ''  overseers  of  the  poor,"  or  have  it  sold  at  stated  periods,  and 
the  proceeds  deposited  as  the  legislature  may  direct ;  but  nothing  should 
induce  them  to  permit  any  of  us  inspectors  of  "  provisions,  produce,  or 
merchandise,"  on  any  pretext  whatsoever,  (or  any  person  in  or  out  of  ao 
office,  but  an  auctioneer  at  public  sale)  to  sell  the  least  particle  of  the  article 
we  inspect ;  if  the}  do,  the  comptroller,  as  trustee,  will  nave  a  "  Flemish 
account"  of  the  "  unclaimed  property  ;"  for  ''  give  us  an  inch,"  and  we 
"  will  take  an  ell;"  and  if  any  evidence  is  required  of  the  postulate,!  refer 
to  the  suppressed  parts  of  my  report  of  21th  January  last,  and  the  memorial 
of  9th  February,  (referred  by  the  senate  to  ihe judiciary  committee,  on  the 
7th  April  last,  by  whom  it  was  suppressed)  but  especially  to  the  letters  and 
affidavits  suppressed  by  the  comptrollers,  in  which  the  subject  is  discussed 
at  large  relative  to  the  operation  of  Ihe  "  discretionary  power"  assumed  by 
use  of  issuing  "duplicate"  bills  to  clerks,  brokers,  and  other  "  convenient 
friends,"  on  their  mere  averment  they  were  "owners;"  the  practical  re- 
sults of  which  most  dangerous  power  is  so  fully  made  apparent  in  Mr- 
Nathaniel  Conkling's  letters  of  September  last,  as  to  render  it  unnecessary 
for  me  to  give  more  cases  ttian  will  be  found  in  the  suppressed  documents, 
which  will  convince  the  most  sceptical  that  the  64th,  76th,  171st,  174th, 
175th,  176th  sections,  &c.  require  amendment. 

But  if  there  should  be  any  doubts,  what  follows  will  show  what  a  "  worth- 
less thing"  the  Revised  Statute,  Chapter  17,  is  practically,  which  I  cannot 
show  more  strikingly,  as  to  the  76th  section,  than  by  giving  the  I4th  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  5th  April  1822,  and  on  the  margin  the  85th  section,  re- 
commended by  the  revisers  as  a  substitute,  which  was  adopted  verbatim  by 
the  legislature,  showing  experimentally  the  danger  of  mere  theorists' (al- 
though eminent  lawyers)  meddling  with  matters  which  they  do  not  under- 
stand, without  "advice"  from  practical  men  ;  for,  strange  to  tell,  the  Hon. 
John  Duer  assured  me,  on  23d  March  last,  that  he  thought  the  words,  "  or 
any  crustings  or  scrapings  of  the  same,  or  shall  knowingly  suffer  any  per- 
son or  persons  in  his  employ  to  do  the  same,"  to  be  surplusage,  the  inspec- 
tor being  prohibited  from  buying  or  selling  directly  or  indirectly,  being  a 
sufficient  guarantee  against  abuse.  But  Mr.  Conkling's  letters  show  the 
reverse. 

Section  14.  "  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  inspector,  during 
his  continuance  in  office,  shall  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  any  other 
person,  buy  or  sell  any  pot  or  pearl  ashes,  or  any  crustings  or  scrapings  of 
the  same,  or  shall  knowingly  suffer  any  person  or  persons  in  his  employ  to 
do  the  same,  he  shall  forfeit  for  each  offence  a  sum  not  exceeding  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  having  cognizance  of  the  same, 
one  moiet)  thereof  to  the  use  of  the  person  or  persons  who  shall  prosecute 
for  the  same,  and  the  other  moiety  to  the  use  of  the  people  of  this  state  : 
^^■hicb  shall  be  paid  to  the  treasurer  thereof  when  collected;  and  Wd-J  h^ 


60 

recovered  in  an  action  of  debt  in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  to- 
gether with  costs  of  suit ;  and  such  inspector,  on  conviction  thereof,  shall 
be  disqualified  from  holding  any  office  of  honour  or  profit  in  this  state." 

Revisors^  ii5th^  and  Legislative  16th  Section. — "  Every  inspector  who, 
during  his  continuance  in  office,  shall  directly  or  indirectly  buy  or  sell  any 
pot  or  pearl  ashes,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  on  convic- 
tion by  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  ;  and  every  inspector  so 
convicted  shall  be  for  ever  thereafter  incapable  of  holding  an  office  of 
honour  or  profit  in  this  state." 

It  is  scarcely  to  be  credited  that  the  Hon.  James  McCall  should  have 
given  his  sanction  to  the  76th  section,  after  having  written  me  what  follows 
and  holding  in  his  hands  my  answer.  The  acceptance  of  Mr.  Hart's  report 
of  30th  October,  and  Mr.  Johnson's  of  11  th  November  1828  ;  the  report  of 
Mr.  Johnson  of  9th  February  1829,  and  the  transactions  on  the  4th  and  > 
6th  February,  and  on  6th  and  7th  April  last,  show  conclusively  what  two 
leading  men,  with  the  aid  of  clerks,  &c.  can  do  in  the  Houses  and  on  com- 
mittees, owing  to  the  lamentable  want  of  attention  on  the  part  of  members 
when  their  own  immediate  interests  are  not  directly  affected  in  the  ques- 
tion at  issue. 

Is  it  not  "passing  strange,"  sir,  that  no  one,  for  instance,  (in  the  Houses 
or  joint  or  special  committees)  should  have  recollected  on  30th  October 
1828,  that  Hart's  1st,  2d,  Sd,  and  4th  sections  were  substantially  copies  of 
the  171st,  172d,  173d,  and  1 74th  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute,  then  in 
full  operation,  and  consequently  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  re-enacting 
them  f  Good,  however,  will  ultimately  result  from  these  legislative  "  ne- 
glects" of  duty,  as  well  as  from  the  "neglects"  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the 
comptrollers,  attorney  general,  clerks,  &c.  showing  that  the  sooner  careless 
and  corrupt  agents  are  discharged  the  better  for  the  principals,  (either  in 
public  or  private  life)  as  a  careless  agent  may  do  as  much  injury  as  a  corrupt 
one,  and  are  almost  equally  to  be  dreaded  when  high  trusts  are  confided  to 
them,  although  the  intention  might  be  pure. 


Extract  from  Mr.  McCalVs  Letter. 

Albany,  October  10,  1827. 

'*  bince  receiving  the  several  communications  from  you,  last  winter,  on 
the  subject  of  the  inspection  of  ashes,  I  have  had  much  time  for  reflection, 
and  have  made  many  inquiries  of  country  merchants  and  manufacturers, 
and  in  almost  every  instance  your  statements  in  relation  to  scrapings  and 
pickings  have  been  confirmed.  The  laws  are  now  under  revision,  and  1 
am  determined  to  make  an  attempt  to  amend  the  inspection  law,  so  as  to 
enforce  the  observance  of  it  if  possible.  Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  enclose 
fo  me  such  amendments  as  may  iiave  suggested  themselves  to  you  as  soon 
as  convenient,  and  no  doubt  you  will  render  a  further  benefit  to  the  public." 


Extracts  from  my  reply. 

New- York,  16th  October,  1827. 

1  wish,  sir,  on  behalf  of  your  constituents,  (many  of  whom  have  unknow- 
ingly been  sufferers)  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  clause  which  I  wish  to 
have  added  (o  the  inspection  law,  calling  upon  mc  and  tho  other  inspectors 


61 

(by  a  day  to  be  fixed)  to  make  a  return  to  the  comptroller,  on  oath,  of  all 
ashes  which  for  30  consecutive  years  past  liave  been  directly  or  indirectly 
withheld  from  the  absentee,  (both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection)  whether  stored 
for  inspection  or  otherwise,  (which  includes  scrapings,  pickings,  and  "fine" 
ashes)  as  I  am  desirous  to  ascertain  the  power  of  conscience  in  certain 
cases  in  which  scrapings  have  been  withheld  from  your  immediate  consti- 
tuents, (and  others  who  can  be  named)  and  of  which,  at  the  present  mo- 
ment, they  are  ignorant. 

"  There  are  other  amendments  intended  to  cut  up  the  frauds,  (to  speak 
in  plain  terms)  on  the  absent  country  owner,  the  shipper  and  the  consumer 
abroad  injurious  to  them,  and  the  inspector  who  does  his  duty  according  to 
law ;  for  particulars  of  which  I  refer  again  to  the  communications  to  the 
governor,  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
and  the  memorandums  furnished  you  last  winter." 

"  Generally  speaking,  my  impressions  are,  that  to  insure  uniformity  in  in- 
spection, an  inspector  general  should  be  appointed,  if  not,  that  it  should  be 
made  a  misdemeanor,  (punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both,)  for 
any  inspector  to  pass  ashes  as  inspected  or  re-inspected,  without  first,  in 
good  faith,  emptying  out  the  entire  contents  of  each  and  every  cask,  sepa- 
rating the  fit  from  those  unfit  for  inspection.  For  neglecting  to  register, 
(at  the  very  time  of  actual  inspection,)  both  kinds  in  his  inspection  book, 
(not  a  separate  book  which  might  be  secreted.)  For  omitting  to  note 
the  scrapings,  (a  most  comprehensive  term,  by  the  by,  as  it  includes 
fine  ashes,  pickings,  sweeping,  alias  gold  dust  )  on  the  back  of  the  copy 
of  the  bill  from  which  they  were  actually  taken,  not  at  the  bottom  of 
the  copy  from  which  they  may  be  cat  off.  For  giving  a  false  date 
to  an  inspection  bill,  (or  leaving  the  date  blank  to  be  filled  up  by  clerks, 
&c.)  so  as  to  give  to  old  ashes  a  factitious  character.  For  taking  up  old 
bills  and  issuing  new  ones,  falsely  certifying  to  are-inspection,  whereas  all 
actually  done  was  shaving  or  dubbing  off  the  year,  say  1826  and  1827. 
To  make  it  penal  in  any  inspector,  (clerk,  foreman,  cooper  or  labourer,) 
to  falsify  brands,  they  knowing  the  ashes  had  not,  bona  fide,  been  re-in- 
spected. To  make  it  penal  in  any  inspector  to  withhold  the  annual  return, 
(required  by  the  17th  section,)  from  those  who  unfortunately  had  lost  or 
mislaid  their  bills,  &c.  To  make  it  penal  in  any  clerk,  foreman,  cooper 
or  labourer  selling  or  disposing  of  any  scrapings  or  other  ashes,  or  as  sub- 
stitutes, (even  under  order  of  the  inspector,)  should  it  even  be  in  part 
payment  for  wages.'' 

"  Perhaps  a  quarterly  abstract  from  our  books  (filed  with  the  clerk  of  the 
city  or  county,)  might  be  a  salutary  check,  if  we  had  to  testify  it  was  a  just 
and  true  return  of  all  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection.  For  other  parti- 
culars, I  refer  to  the  notes  on  the  inspection  law  furnished  you  last  winter.'* 

Few  persons,  I  opine,  will  doubt  the  necessity  of  instantly  amending 
the  70 th  section,  and  to  show  that  the  179th  section  also  requires  it,  I 
extract  further  from  the  letter  to  Mr.  McCall,  as  that  section  is  worse 
than  a  "dead  letter,''  practically,  as  Major  Cooper,  as  late  as  26th  Sept. 
last,  gave  Messrs..  Hart,  Herrick,  &  Co.  scrapings  for  patronage,  (see  Mr. 
Conkiing's  letter)  which  practice  I  think  it  is  full  time  should  be  put  a  stop 
to,  although  I  have,  (since  16th  August,  1824,)  been  told  it  has  become 
prescriptive  from  length  of  time  and  usage  ;  but  in  my  humble  opinion  no- 
thing can  legalize  a  wrong. 

The  Harts  appear  to  have  a  ".hankering"  after  scrapings.  It  appears 
to  be  a  family  failing. 

"  On  the  28th  ult.  87  casks  of  your  ashes  were  consigned  to  Mr.  James 
N.  Cobb,  to  obtain  which  I  was  compelled  to  stipulate  not  to  charge  stor- 
age till  the  1st  November  next,  which  I  acceded  to  because  I  was  desir- 
ous to  have  the  inspection  on  more  accounts  than  one.  In  this  way  in- 
spectors have  played  off  against  each  other,  and  have  taken  ashes  free 

9 


62 

from  storage  for  such  a  length  of  time,  that  when  inspected,  they  found 
their  entire  fees  gone,  and  they  indebted  for  storage,  from  Is.  to  4s.  per 
cask.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  storage,  (in  whole  or  in  part,)  was  indi- 
rectly obtained  through  scrapings,  and  in  another  way  known  to  the  trade. 
Some  of  your  constituents  were  the  sufferers.  If  any  excuse  can  be  plead- 
ed for  withholding  scrapings,  it  would  be  under  such  circumstances  when 
the  inspector  is  deprived  of  liis  just  dues,  without  which  he  cannot  ho- 
nestly meet  his  engagements." 

To  show  also,  the  absolute  necessity  of  amendments  to  the  64th  section, 
I  will  extract  from  my  letter  to  my  brother,  the  late  John  V.  Henry,  Esq. 
of  Albany,  dated  12th  June  last,  first  premising  that  I  stand  ready  to  prove 
that  every  cask  of  ashes  inspected  in  Albany,  between  5th  April,  1 822,  and 
the  21st  December  inst.  received  here,  have  been  unbranded  and  with 
private  marks  substituted.  "  Concealment  of  inspectors'  names,  places  of 
inspection,  quality,  &c.  what  can  all  this  mean  ?  On  the  very  face  of  the 
transaction  there  is  something  radically  wrong.  See  my  letter  to  Dox  & 
Stoddard,  of  20th  July,  1626,  &g.  in  explanation.  For  disapproving  of 
such  like  practices,  I  have  been  ruined  in  pecuniary  matters,  and  been 
actually  incarcerated  in  a  jail,  because  I  would  not,  under  my  construc- 
tion of  the  3d,  5th,  14th  and  17th  sections  of  act  of  5th  April,  18Si2,  do  as 
Messrs.  Snow,  Coooper,  Bogart,  Remsen,  Dumont,  Dox  &  Stoddard  did 
to  obtain  and  retain  patronage,  and  have  done,  since  the  Revised  Statutes, 
chapter  17,  went  into  operation  on  1st  May,  1828. 

"  I  wrote  you  on  the  3d  instant  (from  the  debtor's  apartment,)  and  gave 
it  to  a  stranger,  who  promised  to  put  it  on  board  the  steam  boat,  but  from 
my  having  no  reply,  I  am  to  pre^me  it  has  miscarried.  In  it  I  made  no 
request  that  you  should  incur  any  further  responsibility,  but  merely  that 
you  would  shorten  my  probation  here,  by  giving  me  the  benefit  of  the  two 
third  act,  as  the  payment  of  my  debts  was  (from  fortuitous  causes)  entirely 
out  of  the  question,  consequently  that  the  confinement  of  my  person  could 
answer  no  valuable  purpose,  excepting  to  the  "rogues  and  speculators," 
spoken  of  by  the  joint  committee  in  their  report,  (printed  by  order  of  the 
Assembly  on  4th  November  last,)  who  "  tempted"  the  "cupidity"  of  "  In' 
specters,"  and  made  them  their  "pliant  tools,"  which  the  "  poor  inspector" 
(having  a  spice  of  your  principle  and  spirit,)  would  not  condescend  to  be.'' 

No  wonder  that  such  a  correct  man  as  Colonel  Varick  should  say  in  his 
letter  : 

"  I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  information  communicated  to  me  by 
the  perusal  of  the  enclosed  papers,  which  I  have  read  with  a  degree  of  sur- 
prise and  astonishment.  I  would  not  have  supposed  that  such  bare-faced 
peculation  could  have  been  practised  without  being  exposed  long  since, 
and  the  authors  displaced." 

Which  governor  Clinton,  the  honorable  James  McCall  and  the  Joint 
committee,  (see  their  report  in  the  journals  of  the  senate  October  30,  1828 
say,  can  only  be  done  through  the  intervention  of  the  grand  jury  ;  the 
frauds  charged  not  being  "evasions,  but  palpable  violations''  of  the  law 
and  which  it  was  my  duty  officially  to  put  a  stop  to,  as  neither  the  execu- 
tive or  legislative  authorities  would  or  should  interfere,  as  "  the  law  was 
sufficient"  if  put  in  force  by  me. 

"  Every  person,  (man,  woman  and  child)  is  directly  concerned  in  every 
question  relating  to  the  accuracy  of  weights  and  measures.  I  did  not  move 
in  this  business  until  I  had  ocular  evidence  (in  two  months  only)  of  681 
instances  of  actual  fraud  in  the  Albany  weiglit  and  tare  of  ashes  (putting 
quality  out  of  the  question)  of  which  1  will  give  a  few  instances  known  to 
myself  and  clerks,  in  "justification  of  my  conduct  as  inspector,"  and  will 
then  dismiss  this  subject  with  this  passing  remark,  that  I  may  be  compelled 
by  circumstances  to  let  the  malpractices  continue,  but  that  1  never  should 
forgive  myself,  knowing  the  existence  of  the  frauds  on  absentees,  had  I 
been  silent,  and  voluntarily  permitted  them  to  continue  for  the  time  to 


63 

EXCESS.  "i 

cwt.   qrs.  lbs. 

100  casks    22    3    0    aver'g  5^^  per  ct.  \     Showing  conclu- 
sively,    that     my 
3_p_  weights  and  scales 

(j^  /or  those  in  Alba- 

23  jny,  must'  be   false 


100 

17 

1  15 

132 

22 

1  8 

140 

40 

2  22 

91 

11 

2  12 

42 

22 

1  21 

16| 


/  and  fraudulent. 


605    casks  138     0  22  aver'g  5i  per  ct.  or  24  pr,  ct.  a  cask 

"  I  presume  Henry  Wilkes  will  inform  you  that  it  was  through  his  in- 
terference (after  nine  days  confinement  in  jail)  I  have  been  bailed  for  the 
limits.  He  offered  himself  as  special  bail  with  Horace  Wilkes,  Esq.  but 
was  refused  without  they  would  justify,  which  they  did  not  think  fit  or  pro- 
per to  submit  to.  The  fact  that  such  bail  was  refused,  shows  the  vindictive 

spirit  of  my  opponents,  who  I  know  secretly  urged  -^ to 

put  me  to  all  the  inconvenience  and  expense  he  possibly  could,  in  the  hope 
and  expectation  that  I  would  succumb  to  them  when  deprived  of  my  per- 
sonal liberty  at  this  unpropitious  season  of  the  year.  They  little  know 
what  privations  a  person  can  submit  to  when  under  the  impression  he  is 
suffering  for  "conscience  sake,"  no  matter  whether  the  sufferer  is  under  a 
"  delusion"  or  not ;  perhaps  he  will  endure  the  more  should  that  be  his 
actual  condition. 

"  My  opponents  have  frequently  declared,  that  they  and  their  partizans 
would  prevent  me  from  getting  into  any  employ  here,  and  have  taken  the 
diabolical  but  most  effectual  way  to  accomplish  it  by  circulating  a  report, 
that  my  intellects  were  deranged.  1  hope  in  a  few  days  to  be  in  possession 
of  some  documents  which  will  convince  both  friends  and  enemies  that  I 
have  been  too  much  "  compos  mentis'''  for  all  my  opponents.  If  I  get 
possession  of  the  vouchers  promised  me,  the  warmest  and  most  devoted 
friends  of  the  inspectors  will  from  the  necessity  of  the  case  be  compelled  to 
abandon  them  in  a  body,  take  the  "  poor  inspector"  by  the  hand  to  save 
their  own  characters,  as  it  will  then  be  for  their  interests  to  say,  "  who 
would  have  thought  such  a  state  of  things  to  have  existed  in  the  inspection 
offices  here  and  in  Albany  ?" 

Your  excellency  will  agree  with  me,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  the  deceptive 
and  fraudulent  journal  entries  and  returns  under  the  185th  section,  &c. 
bear  me  out  in  the  averments  I  have  made  (putting  aside  what  I  have  in 
reserve)  and  that  the  64th  section  also  requires  amendment ;  but  if  there 
should  be  any  "  doubts"  on  your  mind,  what  folloAvs  will  remove  them. 

From  a  requisition  made  on  me  by  Messrs.  William  and  John  James  for 
certified  copies  of  copies  of  bills  dated  as  far  back  as  June  2,  1825,  issued 
by  me  unsigned,  it  appears  that  one  of  the  "  country  innocents"  has,  after 
a  lapse  of  45  years,  begun  to  "•  open  his  eyes"  to  the  "  self-evident"  defect 
in  the  copies,  he  having  no  assurance  whatsoever  that  those  wljich  have  been 
forwarded  to  him  were  actually  issued  at  my  office,  being  neither  verified 
by  the  signature  of  myself  or  clerk;  and  should  the  "  country  dupes"  (now 
they  begin  to  see)  follow  this  up  by  an  application  to  the  next  legislature 
to  authorise  them  to  demand  that  I  and  others  should  testify  that  the  un- 


64 

signed  copies  we  have  issued  to  thom,  and  tlic  certified  copies  they  maj' 
call  on  us  to  issue  arc  both  just  and  true  returns  of  tlio  wcij^lit  of  (ho  ashes 
(both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection)  vvliich  the  casks  contained  when  received 
into  store,  my  prediction  in  the  memorial  submitted  to  the  judiciary  com- 
mittee on  the  7th  April  last  (which  was  suppressed  to  save  their  friends 
from  exposure)  will  bu  fulfilled  as  I  sny, 

"  The  result  of  a  call  on  inspectors  to  account,  on  oath,  will  be,  tliat 
every  inspector  in  the  state  (cxce[)t  your  memorialist)  will  have  to  resign, 
at  the  urgent  entreaty  of  their  friends,  the  agents,  to  avoid  disclosures  of 
"  secrets  worth  knowing,"  and  accountability,  both  legally  and  equitably, 
with  their  country  employers." 

The  owner  of  the  ashes  marked  diamond  S,  whoever  he  may  be,  deserves 
credit  for  the  invention.  It  is  a  "  simple  remedy,"  which  all  the  "  country 
dupes"  now  hold  in  their  "own  hands,"  and  which  only  requires  the  legis- 
lature to  give  them  the  authority  to  peremptorily  demand,  should  be  verified 
both  by  signature  and  oath. 

There  was  great  trouble,  sir,  in  the  agency  and  inspection  offices  on  this 
most  appalling  call  of  Mr.  Diamond  S,  but  what  kind  of  returns  were  made 
by  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper,  Ilemsen,  and  Dumont,  to  the  requisitions  on 
them,  has  been  kept  a  profound  secret  from  me,  and  to  every  application 
for  his  real  name  and  residence,  a  "  deaf  car"  has  been  lent. 


Requisition. 

New-York,  4th  March,  1829. 

"  Mr.  Robert  R.  Henry  will  please  to  furnish  us  with  certified  copies  of 
his  inspection  bill  of  15  casks  1st  sort  and  3  do.  second,  marked  diamond 
S,  inspected  about  2d  June  1825,  as  the  owner  is  not  satisfied  without  it. 
Respectfully,  yours,  Sic. 
[Signed]  "  W.  &  S.  JAMES. 

Dia.  S,     15  casks     1  pot.     67  cwt.  3  qrs.  201bs.       Insp.  5J^7  48     p  72 
Do.        3    do.       2  do. 


To  which  requisition  the  following  return  was  made  by  me  the  day  it 
was  received. 

New-York,  12th  March,  1829. 

I  hereby  certify,  that  agreeably  to  the  request,  in  writing,  of  Messrs. 
Wm.  &  John  James,  dated  4th  March  1829,  1  have  (in  conformity  to  Ihe 
presumptive  meaning  of  the  r)4th  and  81st  sections  of  the  Revised  Statute, 
Chapter  17,  passed  3d  December  1827)  issued  this  "  duplicate"  copy  of 
*'  weigh-note,"  and  do  oflicially  aver  that  I  liave  this  day  exan)ined  my 
inspection  books,  and  find  that  the  fifteen  casks  of  first  sort  potashes,  and 
three  casks  second  sort  potashes,  marked  diamond  S,  were  inspciitcd  on  or 
about  the  2d  June  1825,  by  emptying  out  the  entire  contents  and  examin- 
ing th(;m  agreeably  to  the  3d  section  of  the  act  5lh  April  1822,  and  that 
th(!  weight  of  all  the  ashes  received  was,  to  the  best  of  my  knowletlge  and 
belief,  accounted  for  in  the  bills  and  copies  delivered  to  Messrs.  James\ 
and  that  no  separate  or  supjdemcnlary  bill  (or  copy)  for  any  scrapings  has 


65 

ever  been  issued  by  or  for  mc  to  any  person  or  persons  whatsoever,  winch  I 
certify,  as  the  owner,  it  apfjears,  is  not  satisfied  with  the  returns  f  have- 
made. 

(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 


As  I  wished  to  write  to  the  owner  of  the  ashes  marked  diamond  S,  to 
know  "  wliy  and  wherefore"  he  was  "  not  satisfied"  without  "  certified  co- 
pies" of  bills  (so  long  after  inspection)  under  my  hand,  and  to  request  him 
to  send  me  the  copies  he  had  received  that  I  might  ascertain  whether  my 
clerk  had  obeyed  my  positive  orders,  always  to  note  the  scrapings  so  high 
up  on  the  margin  of  the  copies  as  to  prevent,  the  note  being  cut  olf,  (a  trick 
which  I  had  heard  had  been  played,  the  scrapings  haii^ing  by  accident  or 
design  been  noted  so  low  down  as  to  admit  the  note  being  "  cut  off,"  and 
still  leave  the  copies  apparently  perfect)  I  wrote  the  following  letter  to 
Messrs.  James'. 


New- York,  16th  March,  1829. 
Gentlemen, 

I  will  thank  you  to  send  me,  by  the  bearer,  the  name  and  residence  of 
the  owner  of  the  18  casks  marked  diamond  S,  inspected  2d  June  1825,  for 
which  "duplicate"  copy  was  issued  at  your  request  on  the  12th  instant,  as 
I  wish  to  ascertain  why  he  was  dissatisfied  with  my  former  returns,  ami 
whether  it  was  not  because  the  copy  (or  copies)  were  unsigned,  a  great 
oversight,  by  the  by,  in  the  legislature,  which  omission  the  owner  (who  no 
doubt  is  a  practical  man)  has  at  last  noticed  and  will  join  me  in  requesting 
his  friends  in  the  legislature  to  have  rectified,  together  with  the  capital 
errors  and  omissions  made  by  the  revisers  in  their  85th  section,  and  through 
inadvertence  (no  doubt)  by  the  legislature  in  their  76th  section,  (and  other 
sections)  all  which  practically  render  the  inspection  laws  as  they  now  stand, 
worse  than  a  "  dead  letter,"  in  many  important  points. 
Yours  respectfully, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 

Messrs.  William  &  John  James. 


Every  attempt  which  has  been  made  by  me,  since  the  16th  March  last, 
to  get  the  "  name"  and  "  residence"  of  the  "  real  owner"  of  the  diamond  S 
ashes,  has  been  abortive,  although  a  "  fictitious"  name  has  been  given  me. 

On  again  reading  Chadwick's  certificate,  a  thought  has  struck  me  that 
the  "  requisition"  was  made  in  behalf  of  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper,  Remsen,  or 
Dumont,  on  some  of  whom  real  requisitions  were  made,  to  draw  from  me, 
by  finesse,  the  form  of  a  return,  and  that  by  issuing  the  undermentioned 
circular,  I  might  get  at  the  real  name  of  Mr.  Diamond  S  indirectly,  as  I 
did  the  names  of  "  delinquents"  from  the  comptroller,  the  particulars  of 
which  will  be  found  in  my  letter  to  the  President  of  29th  October  last,  al- 
luded to  at  the  commencement  of  this  communication,  a  copy  of  which,  1 
presume,  is  in  Albanj',  if  not  tlie  original,  and  to  which  I  now  refer. 

As  I  cannot  go  to  Albany  till  after  the  2d  February  next,  and  know  (if 
not  present)  that  the  memorial  and  affidavit  will  be  suppressed,  as  usual,  if 


66 

sent,  and  further  know  what  a  powerful  combination  of  interests  will  bo 
brought  to  bear  on  your  excellency,  to  prevent  your  laying  this  communi- 
tion  before  the  legislature,  I  cannot,  on  reflection,  devote  the  intermediate 
time  to  better  purpose,  (considering  what  I  have  in  view)  than  by  writing 
the  following  "  circular,''  and  distributing  it  among  those  for  whom  I  have 
acted  as  agent,  factor,  or  inspector,  and  it  will  be  "  passing  strange"  if  some 
of  them  will  not,  from  self-interested  motives,  be  induced  to  aid  me  in  ob- 
taining amendments  so  "  self-evidently"  necessary  as  those  to  the  12th, 
64th,  76th,  80th,  I71st,  174th,  175th,  176th,  177th,  179th,  181st,  182d, 
185th,  186  th,  sections,  &c.  of  that  "  chapter  of  blunders,"  commonly  called 
the  Kevised  Statute,  Chapter  17,  particularly  the  76th  section,  by  having 
the  words,  "  or  any  crustings  or  scrapings  of  the  same,  or  shall  knowingly 
suffer  any  person  or  persons  in  his  employ  to  do  the  same,"  inserted,  (which, 
strange  to  tell,  the  Hon.  John  Duer  told  me  he  considered  surplusage)  or 
what  would  be  far  better,  to  repeal  the  whole  section  and  re-enact  the  14th 
section  of  the  act  of  5th  April  1 822 ;  but  this  I  presume  to  be  inadmissible, 
as  Mr.  Duer  informed  me  it  was  a  principle  in  the  revised  laws  not  to  give 
any  part  of  the  penalty  to  the  informer ;  when  I  sarcastically  remarked, 
"  If  so,  we  inspectors  are  safe,"  (meaning  for  the  time  to  come)  because  the 
men  in  the  office  having  the  power  to  buy  and  sell,  and  the  inspector,  in- 
spector general,  and  deputies,  the  power  to  issue  bills  with  the  "  mystical" 
word  "  duplicate"  written  on  it,  by  giving  our  "  Cerberuses"  a  sop  out  of 
the  scraping  and  picking  dish,  the  inspector  general,  &c.  could  violate  the 
duties  of  his  office  for  years  and  years,  and  escape  detection,  with  the  ex- 
ercise of  common  discretion. 

If  the  executive  and  legislative  authorities  (after  having  the  "  palpable 
defects"intheinspectionsystemasto  "provisions, produce,  or  merchandise," 
made  known  to  them)  are  willing  their  constituents  should  suffer  under 
them,  so  be  it,  and  I  will  then  "  throw  up  my  cards,"  and  join  my  children 
in  Georgia,  where  I  cannot  be  a  sufferer  directly  or  indirectly.  See  my 
letter  of  Uth  September  1828,  to  the  Hon.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  for  my 
motives  for  action. 

I  will  mention  one  case  more,  to  show  you,  sir,  what  a  "worthless  thing" 
the  Revised  Statute  is,  and  then  close  with  the  copy  of  my  contemplated 
circular,  in  case  your  excellency  does  not  think  fit  or  proper  to  lay  this 
before  the  legislature  immediately  on  their  meeting. 

That  Mr.  Isaac  Bogart,  not  having  been  one  year  in  office,  cannot  have 
any  unclaimed  ashes  to  report  to  any  auctioneer,  under  the  171st  section, 
is  certainly  true  ;  (he  having  illegally  made  way  with  them  ;  see  my  report 
on  the  journals  of  the  Assembly,  extra  session,  63)  of  course  he  has  no 
"  duplicates"  to  transmit  to  the  comptroller  under  the  174th  section  ;  con- 
sequently he  will  give  my  all-important  I75th  section  the  "go-by"  on  the 
1st  January  or  February  next,  and  for  ever  afterwards  as  long  as  the  right 
to  issue  "  duplicate"  bills  on  the  mere  averment  of  the  person  "  claiming 
or  demanding"  that  he  is  the  owner,  showing  no  "  legal"  title  by  the  exhi- 
bition of  original  bills  or  receipts. 

All,  therefore,  he  has,  or  will  do,  to  escape  the  penalty  under  the  177th 
section,  (6th  and  1 1th  of  Hart's  law,  amended  by  Butler)  is  to  file  my  oath 
under  the  176th  section,  with  the  comptroller, 

"That  there  have  been  no  articles,  subject  to  inspection,  stored  with  him, 
which  have  remained  not  claimed  by  the  owner  within  one  year  from  the 
time  they  have  been  inspected,''  which  is  literally  true,  because  the  property 
has  been  "  converted"  (from  time  to  time)  by  him  into  cash,  and  he  holds 
the  proceeds  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance,  thus  complying  with  the 
letter,  but  violating  the  spirit  of  the  laws. 

This  is  precisely  the  situation  of  Messrs.  Robert  Snow,  Samuel  Cooper, 
William  Dumont,  and  Robert  R.  Henry,  who  have  legally  or  illegally  made 
way  with  all  the  unclaimed  property,  and  Iiave  only  to  file  the  oath  under 


67 

Ibe  176th  section  to  escape  the  penalty  of  ^2500  and  imprisonment.  But 
even  that  will  be  unnecessary,  as  one  of  the  partisans  of  tiie  inspectors  says, 
that  when  your  excellency  was  last  in  this  city,  the  inspector  general  was 
fixed  upon,  and  that  the  first  act  after  the  1st  January  will  be  his  nomina- 
tion and  appointment,  which  will  supersede  all  our  commissions  ;  when,  as 
private  citizens,  it  will  be  optional  to  make  the  reports  for  the  ensuing- year 
under  the  176th  or  IP.Sth  sections,  or  not,  which,  with  Hart's  5th  section, 
will  be  a  quietus  to  all  acts  of  omission  or  commission  done,  or  sutTered  to 
be  done ;  consequently,  that  I  might  save  myself  the  trouble  of  sending  this 
communication,  as  it  would  be  laid  aside.  But  on  the  contrary,  a  friend 
of  yours  tells  me  to  pay  no  attention  to  what  they  say,  for,  that  constitutional 
duty  out  of  the  question,  he  has  mistaken  your  character,  if  with  this  docu- 
ment on  your  hand  you  will  make  the  nomination,  and  by  such  a  finesse, 
allow  the  inspectors,  &c.  to  escape  from  all  responsibility,  and  pocket  the 
proceeds  of  unclaimed  property  which  justly  belongs  to  the  treasury,  (when 
the  real  owners  do  not  appear  "  legally"  to  claim)  as  escheats,  placing  us,  in 
fact,  in  the  situation  Inspector  Bogart  placed  himself  in  August  KJ24,  and 
Inspectors  Remsen  and  Wilson  in  January  or  February  1829,  by  their  re- 
signations ;  on  the  contrary,  that  the  rule  of  President  Jackson  in  the  case 
of  the  collector  of  Alexandria  should  be  adopted  by  you,  not  to  accept  or 
cause  resignations,  when  they  give  defaulters  an  undue  advantage  they 
otherwise  would  not  have  possessed.  See  also  my  letter  to  Benjamin  F. 
Butler,  Esq.  of  11th  September  1828,  relative  to  the  privilege  of  commut- 
ing with  money  for  duties  required  to  be  performed  (under  the  174th,  175  th 
or  176th  sections)  under  the  177th  section. 


Contemplated  Circular, 

Sir, 

On  the  14th  July  1824,  I  connected  myself  with  Major  Samuel  Cooper, 
inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  found  him  practically  a  convert  to  the 
principle  that  scrapings  and  crustings  were  not  "  potashes,''  and  that  the 
withholding  the  "  Bogart  commixture"  (which  he  in  1808  reprobated)  from 
the  absentee,  and  "  converting"  them  by  sale  (or  as  largesses  to  his  men, 
&c.)  to  his  private  uses,  under  "duplicate"  bills,  issued  to  JVlr.  John  H. 
Remsen  and  others,  was  not  a  violation  of  duty,  particularly  as  Mr.  Inspec- 
tor Snow's  practice  also  was  to  omit  to  note  the  scrapings  on  the  *'  weigh- 
note,  and  to  bestow  them  in  whole  or  in  part  (with  other  "  unclaimed"  ashes- 
as  largesses,  on  captains  and  other  agents  to  obtain  and  retain  patronage, 
and  occasionally  on  clerks,  &;c.  to  secnire  their  acquiescence. 

Deeming  the  "  practice"  both  illegal  and  immoral,  I  separated  from  the 
major  on  the  16th  October  1824,  since  which  I  have  tried  various  ways 
(by  circulars,  letters,  reports,  memorials,  &c.)  to  draw  the  attention  of 
*'  Absentees"  to  the  omission  of  Scrapings,  alias  f*ickings,  on  their  copies 
(which  were  unsigned,  consequently  no  way  "legally''  binding  on  us)  but 
all  my  "  well  meant"  efforts  failed  until  the  12th  March  1829,  when  I  had 
the  pleasure  of  receiving  the  following  requisition  from  Messrs.  William 
and  John  James,  an  agency  house  in  this  city.  (Here  I  will  give  a  copy 
of  their  requisition  for  certified  copies — my  return — the  letter  to  Messrs. 
James,  with  Chadwick's  note,  and  then  say) 

The  owner  of  the  ashes  marked  [S,]  whoever  he  may  be,  deserves  credit 
for  his  discovery  of  a  mode  of  "  self  protection''  for  the  time  to  come, 
being  a  "  simple  remedy  which  all  the  country  innocents  now  bold  in  their 
own  hands,"  and  also  for  the  past,  provided  they  will  join  with  me  in 


68 

re(iucsting  the  Leg-islature  to  g'ivc  them  authority  peremptorily  to  demand 
from  me  and  others,  that  we  should  verify  by  signature,  and  should  there 
be  any  doubts  that  the  unsig-ned  copies  which  have  been  issued  were  frau- 
dulent, that  the  inspector  should  be  required  to  swear  that  the  copies 
issued,  (whether  signed  or  unsigned)  did  contain  the  entire  weight  of  all 
the  ashes  received,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  with  the  exception  of 
what  might  have  been  "  picked"  or  "  cribbed,"  by  the  men  (unknown  to 
us,)  the  sample  ashes,  and  what  may  have  been  given  away  in  small 
quantities  for  domestic  uses,  but  with  no  other  exceptions  whatsoever. 

My  object  in  making  this  communication,  is  to  get  you,  Sir,  to  co-ope- 
rate with  me  in  obtaining  amendments  to  that  chapter  of  blunders,  com- 
monly called  the  Revised  Statute,  chapter  17,  the  most  effectual  way  to 
accomplish  which,  will  be  to  transmit  this  circular  to  the  representatives 
from  your  county,  and  request  their  concurrence.  Asking  for  nothing  but 
what  is  to  be  binding  on  myself  in  case  I  should  be  permitted  to  have 
"  art  or  part"  in  the  inspection  of  ashes,  <'  sinister  motives"  should  not  be 
imputed  to  me,  in  addition  to  which  I  wish  amendments  to  protect  myself 
(and  indirectly  absentees  both  at  home  and  abroad,)  in  case  I  have  again 
to  become  a  dealer  in  the  article,  as  I  have  made  myself  so  unpopular  with 
the  "  powers  that  be"  that  it  is  determined  I  am  to  be  neither  Inspector 
General,  Deputy,  Clerk,  Foreman,  in  fact  any  office  directly  or  indirectly 
appertaining  to  inspection  of  "  Provisions,  Produce  or  Merchandise,"  an 
event  by  the  by,  not  much  in  favour  of  the  absentee,  which  they  will 
experience  in  case  I  conclude  to  become  a  Georgian. 

Any  person  not  acquainted  with  the  transactions  in  inspection  offices, 
would  suppose  my  return  to  Mr.  S.  was  perfect  in  its  kind,  but  to  show 
you  how  many  "  loop  holes"  I  have  left  myself  to  "  creep  through,''  I , 
exhibit  them  as  "  broad  hints''  for  legislators,  from  which  additional 
disclaimers  to  the  175th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute  may  be  framed, 
until  which  is  done,  I  contemplate  adding  some  one  or  more  of  them  to 
future  requisitions  after  the  word  "  whatsoever,"  as  they  embrace  many 
of  the  covert  mal-practices  of  the  trade. 

1st.  Neither  have  I  directly  or  indirectly  given  any  merchantable  or 
unmerchantable  ashes  (alias,  "  unclaimed"  ashes,  scrapings,  crustings, 
fine  ashes,  gold  dust,  sweepings,  alias  pickings,  alias  the  "  Bogarf  commix- 
luie)  as  largesses,  to  obtain  or  retain  patronage. 

i2d.  Nor  the  proceeds  of  such  ashes  in  the  shape  of  money,  clothing, 
cartage,  storage  or  otherwise,  directly  or  indirectly. 

3d.  Nor  to  printers  in  lieu  of  money,  for  newspapers,  or  any  other  peri- 
odical production. 

4th.  Nor  to  clerks,  foremen,  coopers,  or  labourers  (either  in  money  or 
kind)  to  obtain  or  retain  their  "  good  will"  or  in  part  payment  of  wages 
or  services,  or  as  a  compensation  to  agents,  brokers,  "  convenient  friends," 
or  otherwise. 

0th.  Nor  have  I  ever  designedly  omitted  the  entry  of  any  scrapings  or 
crustings,  or  fine  ashes,  or  suffered  them  to  be  omitted  by  my  clerks  on  the 
copies,  (or  in  tlie'  book  to  be  kept  for  that  purpose)  on  any  pretext  what- 
soever, such  as  that  they  did  not  amount  to  a  "  certain  quantity,"  or  under 
the  hope  or  expectation  that  the  "country  innocents,"  (absentees)  would 
not  notice  the  omissions  on  the  copies,  and  consequently  would  not  "  claim 
ordemand"  them, they  not  having  the  "  gift  of  divining"  that  3  per  cent, 
of  their  ashes  was  placed  in  a  state  of  abeyance  without  their  knowledge. 

Gth.  Nor  have  I  ever  designedly  noticed  the  scrapings  so  low  down  on 
llic  copies,  as  to  admit  of  their  being  "  cut  off,"  and  still  leave  the  copies 
appiircMitly  perfect. 

7th.  That  I  liaye  not  directly  or  itndirccty,  (by  myself  or  any  broker, 
clerk,  or  oilier  agent  or  "  convenient  friend")  sold  or  otherwise  made  way 
with  illegally  under  "  duplicate"    bills,  by  substitution  or  otherwise,  any 


69 


'*  trust  ashes"  (or  property)  or  as  substitutes  for  other  ashes  (which  cotild  not 
be  found)  excepting  as  to  one  barrel  of  scrapings,  whether  fit  or  unfit  for 
inspection,  which  had  been  stored  with  mc  for  inspection  or  otherwise,  con- 
trary to  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  inspection  laws,  particularly  those  of  1822, 
1827,  and  1828. 

8th.  That  I  have  not  directly  or  indirectly  admitted  any  "  fictitious 
claims"  to  ashes  (either  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection,)  or  the  proceeds  of  them 
to  avoid  depositing  the  proceeds  in  the  treasury,  agreeably  to  the  above 
acts,  consequently  that  no  ashes  or  the  proceeds  are  held  or  placed  (direct- 
ly or  indirectly)  in  abeyance,  and  that  no  reports  or  affidavits  required  by 
the  laws,  have  been  withheld  by  me  from  auctioneers,  the  comptroller)  the 
real  owners,  or  the  legislature,  as  I  aver  has  been  done  by  the  other 
Inspectors  under  the  acts  of  25th  February  1813,  the  5th  April  1822,  but 
particularly  under  the  64th,  171st,  174th,  175th,  176th,  and  185th  sections 
of  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  of  the  3d  December  1827,  and  the  5th 
and  6th  sections  of  the  act  of  14th  November  1828,  as  the  journals  of  the 
senate  and  assembly,  the  comptroller's  files,  the  circular  of  the  comptroller 
of  the  11th  July  1829,  the  treasury  books,  and  the  files  of  the  Attorney 
General  will  conclusively  show. 

I  beg  leave  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  report  of  Mn 
Inspector  Dumont,  which  you  will  find  in  the  journals  of  the  assembly,  2d 
February  1829,  pages  340,  34l,  &c.  to  which  you  will  find  attached  the 
following  extra  judicial  return,  which  "  legally''  should  have  been  filed 
with  the  comptroller  under  the  174th  section  of  the  Revised  Statute,  chap- 
ter 17,  or  the  4th  section  of  Hart's  law  of  14th  November  1828,  when  it 
would  have  been  judicial. 

"  The  bills  of  the  following  marks,  consisting  of  from  14  to  308  lbs.  of 
scrapings  or  crusted  ashes  vyere  inspected  by  Mr.  William  Dumont,  previ- 
ous to  the  1st  of  May  last,  appear  not  to  have  been  claimed,  will  be  sold  at 
auction  according  to  law  by  W.  W.  Whetmore  on  the  3d  day  of  March 
next,  unless  "  legally"  claimed  previous  to  the  day  of  sale. 


1826. 
June  7,  C.  Morris. 
"  10,  A.  Davenport. 
"  11,  J.  B. 


18£6.  1826. 

Oct.  7.  S.  F.  P.  &:  CO.  July  10.    E.  S.  Sterling. 
"    13,  S.  H.   A.  "      *     W.  S.  Ely. 

"      '     S.  &  E.  «      <  Hide  &  Richards 

1827. 
"  26,  J.  J.  BrinkerhofF.  March  27,  S.  Pratt.    Aug.  30,  J.  S.  &  T.  M. 
*«    *  L.  Wiley.  "  '  S.  Fuller.       "      '     B.  &  Beebe. 

June  29,  Merrilife  Fink.         "         '  W.  Russel.  Sept.  1,  M.  Rowley. 

May  4,  P.  F.  P.  &  Co.      *♦    8,  S.  F.  P.  &  Co. 
June  1,  S.J.  Brickerhoff    "  15,  A.  Dart.* 


O.  Lee. 
"     *     G.  Fislin. 
"   30,  J.  Smith. 


"     '  B.  Byington. 

"     '  J.  Osgood. 

July  3.  J.  Smith. 

"  W.S.Ely. 

"  O.  Stone. 

."  E.  S.  Sterling. 

"  J.  Beals. 


'  Smith  &  Everts. 

'  Cyrus  Smith. 
12,  C.  Morris. 
14,  D.  Collins. 
'     D.  Baxter. 

27,  M.  &  Fink. 


8,  C.  S.  &  Co. 

1827. 
Sept.  12,  D.  L.  Sayre. 
Oct.  9,  H.  &  Bull. 

"   12,    do.         do. 

"     *     N.  Foster,  , 

"  26,  J.  Hill. 

1828. 
March  14,  J.   H.   &  S. 

Leonard. 
April  19,  R.  B.  «&,  Co. 

"     28,  J.  S. 

''       '    R.  S." 

There  is  something  very  remarkable  m  the  wbrding,  &c.  of  the  above 
report,  (see  act  of  November  1828,)  forty-eight  different  parcels  of  ashee, 
only  "  appear  not  to  Lave  been  claimed.''    What  is  the  probable  reason 

10 


70 

they  have  not  been  claimed  ?  Why,  '*  I  guess"  not  eight  out  of  the  forty-eight 
have  the  scrapings  noted  *'  on  the  copies  of  the  bills  from  which  they  were 
taken,''  as  is  imperatively  required  by  the  5th  section  of  the  act  of  5th 
April  1B22 ;  a  *'  bad  precedent,"  which  the  junior  inspectors  had  set  them 
by  the  senior  inspectors,  to  the  great  damage  of  the  absentee. 

Those  ashes  having  been  sold  by  the  auctioneer,  and  the  proceeds  deposi- 
ted in  the  treasury,  how  are  the  persons  above  named  to  shew  legal  title 
to  the  comptroller  ?  The  unsigned  copies  should  be  no  "  legal''  or  equita- 
ble vouchers  in  the  eyes  of  the  comptroller,  because  he  can  from  them  have 
no  assurance  that  they  are  actually  Mr.  l3umont's,  without  the  clause  be 
passed  authorising  those  persons  (and  all  others)  to  call  for  copies  verified 
by  signature  and  oath,  which  is  an  all  important  amendment  for  the  absen- 
tee, as  it  will  with  the  other  amendments  which  I  shall  propose,  be 
effectual  guards  against  abuses  for  the  time  to  come. 

The  efforts  I  shall  make  the  ensuing  session  to  obtain  amendments,  &c. 
are  the  last  I  shall  attempt ;  for  if  the  country  owners  will  not  aid  rae,  and 
are  contented  with  unsigned  copies,  &c.  I  should  be. 

I  am,  Sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  ashes. 
To  Mr. 


The  fact  tliat  Mr.  Dumont  omitted  to  note  the  scrapings  on  his  copies 
in  1825,  (when  his  patrons,  Keeler  &  Rogers  and  others  requested  it,)  will 
not  be  denied  by  him,  consequently  it  is  fairly  to  be  presumed  he  did  the 
same  in  1827  and  1G28. 

As  I  have  from  experience  Found  that  "  halfway  measures,"  when  prin- 
ciple is  at  issue,  are  the  worst  that  can  be  pursued,  I  aver,  and  stand  ready 
to  prove,  (if  they  dare  put  me  to  the  proof,)  that  scrapings  were  omitted 
designedly  by  him,  Robert  Snow,  Samuel  Cooper,  John  H.  Remsen,  (and 
by  Mr.  Bogart  till  his  resignation)  down  to  the  30th  April  1828,  and  by 
Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper  and  Remsen,  certainly  since  the  Revised  Statute 
chapter  17,  has  been  in  operation.     See  Mr.  Conkling's  letter. 

As  I  will  have  as  much  to  dread  (as  a  buyer  or  seller  of  ashes)  from 
inspectors  general  Snow,  Dumont,  Cooper,  Bogart,  Remsen,  &c.  and 
more,  (as  they  have  now  the  power  under  the  80lh  section  to  appoint  as 
many  assistants  as  they  think  proper,)  it  is  all  important  for  me  and  others, 
to  have  the  "  legal"  right  to  demand  certified  copies  on  oath,  whenever  we 
suppose  we  have  been  cheated.  Every  person  will  admit  the  3d  and  5th 
sections  of  the  act  of  5th  April  1822,  are  plain  and  binding  enough,  but 
they  were  rendered  a  "  dead  letter"  practically,  the  copies  being  unsigned. 
I  will  give  two  strong  cases  in  point. 

When  the  act  of  5th  April  1822,  was  received,  Mr.  Inspector  Bogart  en- 
tered the  scrapings  on  the  copies, agreeably  to  the  5th  section.  An  agency 
house  inquired  the  reason  for  such  an  extraordinary  entry  on  his  or  their 
copies,  and  was  told,  that  as  no  mention  was  made  of  scrapings  in  the  act 
of  1813,  they  were  generally  withheld,  (and  not  noted  on  the  copies)  and 
fV'ven  to  them  and  others  for  their  good  will  and  patronage.  That  com- 
plaints had  been  made  to  the  Hon.  Ephraim  Hart,  (see  my  Memorial,  sup- 
pressed by  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  Senate,  for  particulars)  who  had 
introduced  amendments  into  the  3d  and  5th  sections,  requiring  the  scrapings 
to  be  noted  on  each  and  every  copy.  Mr.  Bogart  was  told  if  he  did  not 
discontinue  the  practice  of  noting  the  scrapings  on  the  copies,  they  would 
jminediately  transfer  their  business  to  Mr.  Snow ;  and  Mr.  Bogart  would 


71 

have  yielded  the  point,  maugre  the  lavr,  had  it  not  been  for  the  advice  of  his 
coloHred  man,  Isaac  Heddy.  On  his  refusal,  the  business  was  transferred 
to  Mr.  Snow,  who  omitted  to  note  the  scrapings  on  the  copies  down  to 
30th  April  1828,  if  not  since  then. 

Again.  1  had  been  frequently  told  that  was  Mr.  Snow's  practice,  but  I 
had  no  ocular  evidence  of  the  fact  until  7th  January  1825,  when  a  quantity 
of  ashes  (marked  J.  W.  Strong,  W.  Pixley,  &  Co.  Hart  &  Lay  or  Saxton, 

C  Cary,  and Kimberly)  were  brought  from  Mill-strex3t,  to  the  store 

in  Stone-street,  (where  I  then  kept  my  office)  the  scrapings  on  which 
(nearly  three  large  casks)  were  taken  out  and  thrown  into  a  common  mass 
without  any  regard  to  individual  rights,  and  they  were  set  side  (the  foreman 
told  me)  for  account  of  the  agents. 

When  I  submitted  my  letter  of  4th  March  1825,  (to  Governor  Clinton) 
to  Mr.  Snow,  at  his  office,  on  the  7th  or  8th  March,  he  told  me  he  had  been 
compelled  to  give  scrapings  to  captains  and  other  agents,  or  lose  their 
patronage,  as  Mr.  Bogart  gave. 

The  complaint  of  agents  against  Maj.  Cooper  is,  that  he  literally  took  all 
the  scrapings,  and  would  make  no  division  of  the  "  prize,''  (as  Mr.  Snow's 
men  call  it,  see  Mr.  Conkling's  letter)  "  share  and  share"  alike,  contrary 
to  the  64th  section,  although  not  exactly  to  the  76th  section,  as  he  does  not 
sell,  only  gives. 

I  am  well  aware,  sir,  that  the  5th  section  of  Hart's  law,  and  the  highly 
reprehensible  if  not  criminal  neglect  of  the  comptroller  and  attorney  gene- 
ral, in  not  enforcing  the  177th  and  186th  sections,  releases  all  inspectors 
from  responsibilities  for  all  such  acts  done  or  suffered  to  be  done;  but  these 
"  cases  in  point"  are  given  to  show  the  necessity  for  certified  copies  on 
oath  for  the  time  to  come ;  if  not,  the  inspection  system  will  be  a  nominal 
thing. 

If  I  was  in  the  place  of  agents,  I  would  quickly  render  the  operation  of 
certified  copies  on  oath  as  to  their  effects  on  past  transactions  a  "  dead 
letter,"  by  requesting  all  my  friends  in  and  out  of  the  legislature  to  have 
the  amendment  passed,  and  when  requisitions  came  for  "certified  copies 
on  oath,"  I  would  tell  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper,  Bogart,  and  Dumont,  *'  Your 
safety  and  mine  requires  you  to  follow  Henry's  advice  given  in  letters  to 
Cornelius  V.  V.  Leonard,  Nathaniel  Conkling,  James  Powers,  and  Isaac 
Heddy,  (who  are  in  your  employ  as  clerks,  foreman,  and  cooper)  dated  25th 
and  26th  July  1828.  Resign  in  their  favour,  in  case  an  inspector  general 
is  not  appointed,  when,  as  "  deputies  or  private  citizens,"  you  can  laugh  at 
Henry's  174th,  175th,  or  176th  sections,  and  his  amendments  to  Hart's  6th 
and  1 1th  sections,  and  his  "  certified  copies  on  oath." 

The  public  impression,  sir,  has  been,  that  in  the  transactions  at  St. 
Mary's  and  here,  I  have  been  acting  on  my  own  mere  motion  and  without 
advice.  The  letter  to  Lieutenant  Governor  Pitcher  of  the  1 1  th  November 
1828,  contains  a  letter  to  me  from  Governor  Clinton  of  12th  October  1823, 
showing  that  what  appeared  after  that  date  from  me  relative  to  the  St. 
Mary's  affair,  must  have  met  with  his  approbation,  and  in  fact  my  recent 
letters  to  President  Jackson  of  1st,  2d,  and  7th  July  last,  are  predicated 
on  his  advice  to  avoid  the  "  slave  business,"  as  far  as  possible,  whenever  I 
again  brought  the  collector's  affair  forward,  (which  I  told  him  I  should  do, 
on  any  change  of  administration,  if  it  was  20  years  afterwards,  provided  the 
collector  was  continued  in  office)  and  confine  myself  to  the  use  and  con- 
version of  Bilbo's  custom-house  bond  to  private  uses,  vvliich  every  person 
would  agree  with  me  was  fraudulent,  and  could  I  (without  breach  of  faith) 
produce  a  letter  dated  13th  March  1827,  marked  ''  private,"  it  would  show 
that  some"  advice"  relative  to  the  inspectors,  and  the  course  I  should  pur- 
sue with  them,  was  given,  which,  by  the  by,  I  did  not  then  follow,  as  vin- 
dictive motives  would  be  imputed  to  me,  although  I  acted  ofiicially. 

Previously  to  my  writing  the  letter  of  4th  March  1825,  to  Governo 


72 

Clinton,  I  consulted  that  luminary  of  the  law,  Chancellor  Kent,  relative 
to  what  I  deemed  illegal  practices,  under  the  act  of  1822,  who  told  me,  if 
it  was  a  fact  that  Snow,  Cooper,  and  Bog-art,  had  withheld  the  returns  re- 
quired by  the  3d,  5th,  and  17th  sections,  they  were  not  evasions,  but  fla- 
grant violations  of  both  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  law. 

Fortified  in  my  opinions  and  practice  as  an  inspector,  by  the  sanction  of 
such  men  as  De  Witt  Clinton,  Chancellor  Kent,  Nicholas  Devereaux  & 
Co.  the  Hon.  James  McCall,  the  correspondent  of  De  Rham  &  Moore, 
Samuel  Corp,  Esq.  Col.  Richard  Varick,  John  I.  Mumford,  Esq.  and  Mr. 
Nameless,  (whose  name,  if  I  was  at  liberty  to  give,  would  make  agents  and 
inspectors  "  tremble  in  their  shoes,"  as  his  letter  shows  him  to  be  no  com- 
mon character)  I  ventured  to  differ  in  opinion  with  my  esteemed  brother  and 
other  friends,  (who  would  not  even  look  at  my  documents)  who  admitted  I 
was  right  in  principle ;  but  said  the  powerful  combination  of  inspectors, 
agents,  brokers,  senators,  clerks,  chairmen  of  joint  and  special  committees, 
who  voted  as  they  directed,  aided  by  the  comptroller  and  attorney  general, 
was  too  much  for  me,  standing  alone  and  without  a  cent  in  my  pocket. 

But  he  and  they  little  thought  that  "journal  entries,"  and  ''  circulars," 
which  cannot  be  "  yazoo'd,"  would  place  me  on  the  "  vantage  ground," 
without  the  "constituted  authorities"  lay  both  law  and  justice  aside,  and 
allow  their  "  constituents"  to  continue  to  suffer  under  the  17th  chapter  of 
blunders,  rather  than  suffer  a  few  corrupt  public  oflBcers  from  being  ex- 
posed to  merited  punishment,  and  countenance  the  "  barefaced  pecula- 
tion," &c.  spoken  of  by  Col.  Varick  in  his  letter. 

I  regret  I  did  not  take  Chancellor  Kent's  opinion  (and  several  others 
whom  I  consulted)  in  writing  ;  but  those  I  have  received  are  so  much  in 
point,  that  1  beg  leave  to  give  them  for  your  information  and  that  of  others, 
for  to  be  candid  with  you,  sir,  nine  sheets  of  this  communication  are  already 
copied  and  in  circulation,  and  the  rest  will  be  as  soon  as  I  can  complete 
them,  so  that  part  of  the  contents  will  be  known  before  your  excellency 
receives  the  original. 

The  clerks,  &c.  therefore,  had  better  follow  General  Ward's  plan,  by 
complaining  to  tho  Houses  themselves  against  ray  "libellous  allegations,"  and 
get  the  "  whip  hand"  of  me,  which  would  have  a  better  appearance  than 
to  be  brought  up  to  the  "  ring  bolt,"  by  the  "  poor  inspector,"  which  they 
assuredly  will  be,  (after  the  2d  February)  life,  health,  &c.  granted  me  by  a 
benign  Providence,  as  the  entering  "  spurious  reports"  and  letters  on  tho 
journals  are  certainly  "  bad  precedents,"  and  cannot  be  too  soon  checked. 
See  my  report  on  the  journals  of  Assembly,  20th  October  1828,  relative  to 
**bad  precedents." 


Utica,  September  8th,  1825. 

Dear  Sir, 

We  received  some  days  since  your  inspection  bill  of  ashes,  dated  25th  July. 
For  the  future,  the  ashes  you  may  inspect  for  us,  you  will  please  have  tho 
name  in  full  on  the  copy  opposite  to  the  number,  and  you  will  oblige  us  by 
being  as  exact  and  particular  in  this  respect  as  possible.  The  barrels 
marked  H,  make  out  in  a  separate  bill.  In  the  bills  received,  there  are 
four  barrels  of  this  mark  included  with  them  without. 
Very  respectfully  wo  are 

Your  obedient  servants, 

NICHOLAS  DEVEREAUX  &  Co. 

P.  S.     When  ashes  cannot  be  put  back  nito  tbe  barrel,  we  want  a  memo, 
or  the  copy  of  the;  quantity,  and  should  it  be  put  in  another  bb).  it  is  necessary 


73 

we  should  know  it.     Wc  take  ashes  from  different  owners,  and  it  is  right 
wc  should  have  the  return  of  each  barrel. 

N.  D.  &  Co. 


Such  should  liavc  been  the  instructions  from  every  agent ;  but,  though 
"  passing  strange,"  they  were  the  very  reverse.  vSee  notes  on  tlie  margin. 
For  one  of  the  reasons  for  Nicholas  Devereaux  &Co.  being  so  particular,  I 
refer  to  my  letter  to  the  Comptroller,  of  21st  January  last,  and  for  other 
reasons,  t6  Mr.  Alexander  Black,  and  his  friend,  Mr.  Milne,  for  "  secrets 
worth  knowing." 


New- York,  2d  April,  1827. 
To  Mr,  Robert  R.  Henry. 

Dear  Sir, 

I  am  indebted  for  your  two  letters  of  last  week,  accompanied  by  various 
statements  and  suggestions  as  to  abuses  in  the  inspection  of  ashes  in  this 
state  ;  and  although  I  have  been  personally  for  many  years  out  of  the  way 
of  transactions  in  this  important  commodity,  I  feel  persuaded,  from  my  con- 
viction of  the  sincerity  and  accuracy  of  your  character,  (so  long  ascertained 
on  ray  part)  that  your  observations  cannot  have  been  made  without  good 
grounds. 

Unhappily,  however,  I  hare  long  since  observed,  that  evils  of  this  kind 
creeping  in  silently  and  by  slow  degrees  and  not  growing  to  a  great  degree 
of  atrocity,  are  with  difficulty  corrected,  and  that  he  who  labours  to  repair 
the  abuse,  too  often  meets  enmity  and  ill  will  in  return  for  even  distin- 
guished zeal.  In  the  present  case,  personal  benefit  will  be  supposed  to 
have  some  share  in  the  discussion,  and  therefore  your  observations  will  be 
more  exposed  to  scrutiny. 

For  myself  I  cannot  but  imagine  that  your  perseverance  in  the  faithful 
and  conscientious  course  which  I  am  convinced  you  have  always  adopted, 
will  secure  you  ultimately,  if  not  a  preference,  yet  at  least  a  perfectly  fair 
post  of  competition.  A  degree  of  interest,  however,  either  with  the  owners 
or  the  consignees  of  ashes,  I  know  is  indispensable  towards  a  fair  chance 
for  your  celebrity,  to  which  I  most  cordially  wish  that  I  could  contribute. 

As  you  have  introduced  to  my  observation  a  few  names  to  whom  you 
have  addressed  yourself,  I  shall  take  occasion  to  subjoin  a  few  more,  of 
respectable  and  important  standing  with  us,  (especially  in  the  line  of  busi- 
ness under  consideration)  whose  judgment,  if  you  can  convince  as  to  the 
subject  of  complaint,  I  have  no  doubt,  from  their  personal  candour,  that 
you  will  secure  their  attachment. 

I  remain,  dear  sir,  with  great  esteem, 

Your  faithful  and  obedient  servant, 
[Signed]  SAMUEL  CORP. 

The  names  to  which  I  would  more  immediately  refer  you  are,  Abraham 
Bell  &  Co.  James  McBride,  John  Flack,  Samuel  Hicks  &  Son,  F.  Thomp- 
son &  Nephews,  James  Magee  &,  Co.  Mackee,  Lockhart  &  Co.  John  H. 
Ilowland. 

P.  S.  On  perusing  a  second  time  your  favour  of  30th  March,  I  observe 
iQ  its  conclusion  an  appeal  to  my  opinion  as  a  mercantile  man, 


74 

''  Whether  I  should  think  you  in  error  in  refusinff  to  substitute  new  bills 
for  old?" 

I  should  certainly  not  blame  you  for  giving  a  new  and  clean  bill  in  place 
of  an  old  one  which  might  have  become  defaced  or  mutilated. 

But  if  a  person  should  require  you  to  issue  a  new  document,  varying  in 
date,  quality,  or  other  important  circumstances,  from  the  old,  I  trust  you 
would  unequivocally  convince  him  on  the  spot  of  his  mistake,  in  applying 
to  you  on  the  occasion. 

S.  C. 


A  "  deaf  ear"  was  lent  to  "  all  my  suggestions,"  by  the  President  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  shippers,  the  printers,  &c.  owing  to  the  supe- 
rior influence  of  agents,  brokers,  inspectors,  &c.  until  20th  July  1827,  from 
which  period  up  to  the  10th  October  1827,  advices  from  Antwerp,  Havre, 
Liverpool,  London,  Belfast,  &c.  more  than  confirmed  my  mercantile  and 
official  predictions;  consequently,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  printers, 
senators.  Governor,  shippers,  &c.  moved  simultaneously,  and  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  Committee  of  the  Houses,  consulted  the  "  poor  inspector." 

Had  they  been  so  wise  as  to  request  him  to  attend  at  Albany,  the  *'  sad 
mistakes"  made  by  the  revisers  and  the  legislature  in  the  17th  chapter  of 
blunders  (particularly  in  the  sections  64,  76,  171,  174,  176,  179,  &c.  un- 
der which  absentees  have  since  been  suffering)  would  not  have  happened, 
and  the  necessity  for  the  present  application  would  have  been  prevented. 

Previous  to  my  giving  the  letter  from  Antwerp,  I  beg  leave  to  extract 
from  a  memorandum  I  made,  showing  the  state  of  things  which  existed  up 
to  the  1st  of  May,  1828,  when  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  went  into 
operation,  since  which  the  same  practices  have  been  continued,  only  more 
covertly,  as  I  stand  ready  to  prove,  ashes  having  been  "  sherryed"  as  lately 
as  the  24th  of  June  last,  to  the  great  gain  of  the  seller,  but  loss  of  the  ship- 
per or  consumer,  at  home  or  abroad. 

Is  it  anyway  surprising,  sir,  that  I  should  find  fault  with  such  unfair 
practices  (to  say  the  least  of  them)  as  I  have  and  will  now  give,  which  were 
every-day  transactions  until  I  checked  them  ?  How  an  inspector  may  bribe 
a  broker,  or  agent,  or  owner,  (without  giving  money)  and  get  his  patron- 
age ;  and  how  an  inspector  by  constant  refusal  may  lose  his  patrons  ? 

A  broker  holds  in  his  hands  new  bills,  which  I  told  him  had  been  issued 
for  old  ones  :  he  said  the  practice  was  common  (see  the  Morning  Courier 
between  the  19th  of  July  and  the  17th  of  August,  1827,  in  which  Mr. 
Mumford,  who  had  been  a  broker,  also  states  the  same  fact)  that  some  bills 
which  he  had  purchased  of  1827  inspection,  he  found  on  examination  of 
the  books,  were  inspected  early  in  September,  1826. 

"  I  have  in  my  possession  a  bill  dated  April  5,  1824,  for  which  a  new  bill 
was  obtained,  dated  on  or  about  the  18th  of  February,  1825,  (from  an  in- 
spector who  had  never  seen  the  aslies)  and  they  were  palmed  on  John  De 
Kuyter,  Esq.  as  freshly  inspected  ashes,  as  was  another  parcel  on  April  13, 
1827,  on  another  house.  I  know  of  a  case,  in  which  old  ashes  (sent  down 
by  mistake  unaltered  to  the  vessel)  had  the  old  brands  effaced  and  new 
ones  substituted  !"  See  my  circular  of  March  19,  1828,  in  which  I  charge 
the  fraudulent  practice  by  name  on  Messrs.  Snow,  Cooper,  Remsen,  and 
Dumont ;  but  neither  of  them  dare  to  bring  me  to  account  (although  I 
offered  to  waive  all  forms  of  law)  as  they  knew  I  would  prove  the  fact  by 
their  clerks,  &c.  Say  John  Brower,  Joseph  Conkling,  Nathaniel  Conk- 
ling,  William  Anderson,  Cornelius  V".  V.  Leonard  (putting  the  clerks  of 
brokers  and  agents  out  of  the  question)  :   they  pocketted  the  insult. 

Let  us  see  what  ex-broker  Mumford  says  on  the  subject  in  his  Morning 
Courier  for  Friday,  July  20,  1827. 


75 

"  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. — We  have  been  favoured  with  the  following  let- 
ter, with  the  liberty  of  using  the  name  of  the  very  respectable  house  to 
whom  it  was  addressed.  We  have  for  some  time  been  apprised  that  there 
were  serious  complaints  against  some  of  our  inspectors;  but  as  we  were  as- 
sured the  subject  would  he  brought  before  the  grand  jury,  and  were  not  in 
possession  of  all  the  facts,  we  have  hitherto  refrained  from  the  comments 
which  the  subject  now  imperiously  demands. 

"  We  have  spoken  in  no  measured  terms  of  the  frauds  in  cotton,  and 
think  no  penalty  too  heavy  for  the  perpetrators  of  them ;  and  now  that 
similar  frauds  are  brought  down  to  our  own  doors,  we  pledge  ourselves  tliat 
our  columns  shall  not  be  neutral  on  a  topic  of  such  vital  interest  to  our 
merchants  as  the  deception  in  ashes,  of  which  the  letter  so  strongly  and 
justly  complains." 


To  Messrs,  De  Rham  and  Moore, 

Antwerp,  May  29,  1827. 

"  My  letter  of  the  25th  inst.  was  scarcely  gone,  when  several  of  my  best 
customers  called  and  complained  bitterly  of  the  quality  of  the  ashes  re- 
ceived by  the  Alfred,  Capt.  Scule,  and  they  have  left  the  greatest  part  for 
my  account.  They  say  first :  That  the  ashes  are  mixed  with  sand  and  dirt, 
for  that  after  they  are  dissolved  a  very  heavy  sediment  settles  at  the  bottom 
of  the  tubs,  which  diminishes  considerably  the  strength  of  the  ley,  which 
is  found  to  be  from  5  to  8  per  cent,  weaker  than  that  proceeding  from  Rus- 
sian ashes. 

"  2d.  That  the  strength  of  your  ashes  was  formerly  from  10  to  12  degrees 
more  than  Russian.  Now,  Russian  are  already  2  to  4  degrees  better  than 
yours;  in  consequence  of  which  my  customers  have  ordered  a  supply  of 
Russian  ashes,  which  come  cheaper  than  yours.  In  consequence  of  which 
I  am  compelled  to  change  my  operations. 

"I  give  you  the  information  in  order  that  you  may  warn  your  inspectors  ; 
and  that  measures  may  be  taken,  without  which,  America  will  eventually 
lose  that  branch  of  commerce  ;  and  I  am  now  compelled  to  annul  my  order 
of  the  18th  of  this  month  for  500  barrels." 


I  was  going  to  extract  further  from  Mr.  M umford's  "  editorial  remarks,'" 
(which  will  apply  to  the  present  slate  of  things  as  well  as  in  1827)  ashes 
having  been  ''  sherryed"  (alias  the  old  brands  effaced  and  new  ones  substi- 
tuted as  lately  as  24th  June  last)  which,  under  the  Revised  Statutes,  as  it 
now  stands,  can  be  done  with  perfect  safety  (with  consideration)  for  who 
will  assume  voluntarily  the  odious  office  of  informer  even  officially,  when 
nothing  but  loss  and  obloquy  can  accrue  to  him  personally  on  complaint  to 
a  grand  jury  ? 

To  save  trouble,  I  send  your  excellency  my  extracts  from  the  Morning 
Courier.  Something  should  be  done  to  put  a  stop  to  unfair  practices.  I 
will  suggest  effectual  remedies  if  I  am  sent  for,  without  which,  make  any 
law,  sir,  you  please,  and  I  can  give  it  the  "  go  by,"  as  I  told  the  comptrol- 
ler in  my  letter  of  October  23,  1828,  and  the  special  committee  of  the  se- 
nate on  the  28th  of  October,  1828,  (suppressed)  which  I  would  not  commit 
to  paper,  but  would  impart  verbally  to  the  committee,  as  I  am  desirous  the 


76 

hw  should  be  called  truly  *•'  Henry's  law  ;"  (see  my  letter  to  the  hon.  Uenj, 
F.  Butler,  of  Uth  September,  1828,  and  my  report  on  the  journals  of  the 
assembly,  October  1828,  &c.)  but  I  was  not  sent  for  as  the  Hon.  Truman 
Hart,  and  tlie  persons  who  assisted  him  in  framing  the  report  and  bill,  sup- 
posed it  related  to  the  income' his  friends  derived  from  scrapings,  &c. 

As  I  was  told  so  frequently  that  it  was  impossible  that  Maj.  Cooper,  a  re- 
volutionary character  and  a  member  of  the  Cincinnati,  and  Mr.  Inspector 
Snow,  a  religious  man,  could  be  guilty  of  such  malpractices  as  I  alleged 
against  them,I  was  induced  to  send  certain  documents  relative  to  the  "  af- 
fair" to  Col.  Rich'd  Varick,  President  of  the  Cincinnati,  (a  friend  and  com- 
panion of  the  Major)  and  to  Mr.  Nameless,  a  friend  of  Mr.  Snow  (which  he 
would  acknowledge  he  had  been,  if  I  was  at  liberty  to  name  him)  which 
documents  were  returned  with  the  following  written  opinion  on  the  cases  : 

Jersey  City,  26th  May,  1828. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  information  communicated  to 
me  by  the  perusal  of  the  enclosed  papers,  which  1  have  read  with  a  degree 
of  surprise  and  astonishment.  I  could  not  have  supposed  it  possible  that 
such  bare-faced  peculation  could  have  been  practised  without  being  ex- 
posed long  since,  and  the  authors  displaced. 

I  am,  dear  Sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 
(Signed)  RICHARD  VARICK, 

Mr.  ROBERT  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  Ashes,  New-York. 


New- York,  23d  November,  182'?. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  have  read  over  the  greater  part  of  the  papers  you  committed 
to  my  inspection.  I  have  not  gone  into  the  whole,  because  I  believe  my 
previous  acquaintance  with  the  subject,  the  many  conversations  I  have  had 
with  you  thereon,  and  the  charges  which  are  repeated  in  several  shapes", 
explained  to  different  individuals,  and  supported  by  various  appeals,  are 
thoroughly  understood  by  me,  and  may  be  briefly  summed  up  thus. 

Alledged  frauds  on  the  makers  of  ashes : — scrapings  not  accounted 
for.     Unclaimed  ashes  not  advertised. 

Alledged  frauds  on  shippers  of  ashes,  being  generally  incompletely,  and 
sometimes  unfairly  inspected. — False  dates  being  assigned  to  inspection. — 
Pretended  re-inspection,  without  examination. 

I  am  also  sensible  that  the  injuries  I  have  placed  in  the  second  class,  may 
concern  those  of  the  first,  (I  mean  the  makers,)  not  only  as  such  frauds 
tend  to  affect  the  character  of  New-York  ashes  generally,  but  on  the  prin- 
ciple, that  every  fair  dealer  suffers  when  his  article  is  placed  on  a  level 
with  that  of  the  dishonest.  But  keeping  this  position  in  view,  I  think  you 
have  laid  an  undue  stress  on  the  maker's  share  of  the  evils  that  have  ex- 
isted. That  all  men  should  act  honestly  is  certain,  and  that  those  execut- 
ing a  public  trust  are  more  especially  bound  to  discharge  its  duties  faith- 
fully, is  equally  true  ;  but  while  these  axioms  are  undoubtedly  correct,  yet 
as  a  practical  matter,  a  man  who  is  defrauded  will  receive  from  the  public 
but  little  commiseration  if  he  has  a  simple  remedy  in  his  own  hands. 

The  charges  against  the  present  inspectors  may  also  be  considered  as 
breaches  of  public  duty  ;  first,  in  not  complying  strictly  with  the  letter  of 
the  law,  in  whicii  respect  the  offence  is  rather  of  a  legal  than  a  moral  cha- 
racter ;  and  secondly,  which  is  of  far  greater  importance,  they  havo  beet* 


77 

guilty  of  a  CFimmal  negligence  and  actual  fraud  on  the  public.  Assuming 
this  to  be  the  fact,  can  past  instances  be  dealt  with  in  any  way  but  by  cri- 
minal prosecution,  founded  on  individual  cases  ?  In  respect  to  these,  there 
appears  no  other  mode  of  proceeding-,  and  until  adopted,  public  and  private 
opinion  must  be  suspended. 

Is  there  any  remedy  for  the  past,  or  security  for  the  future  to  be  expected 
from  additional  oaths  ?  Will  the  man  who  scruples  not  to  cheat,  after 
swearing  to  be  faithful,  refuse  to  take  another  oath,  (if  necessary)  that  he 
has  been  honest  ?  In  a  word,  can  a  man  who  will  rob,  be  deterred  by  the 
force  of  an  oath  ?  I  think  not ;  and  it  seems  to  me,  that  however  proper 
it  may  be,  to  make  and  enforce  general  regulations,  a  man  who  cannot  be 
kept  by  such  guards  from  appropriating  to  his  own  use  the  scrapings,  will 
(if  dishonestly  inclined,)  transfer  his  attack  upon  the  more  valuable  ashes. 
A  multitude  of  legal  enactments  frequently  entangle  honest  men,  while 
they  are  mere  cobwebs  for  rogues.  The  best  security  is  to  be  found  in 
the  appointment  to  office  of  men  of  good  character  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  vigilant  attention  to  the  interest  of  those  concerned,  on  the  other. 

I  do  not  think  that  persons  generally  will  concur  with  you  in  presuming 
guilt  from  the  determined  silence  of  the  parties.  When  a  charge  of  a 
highly  criminal  nature  is  made  against  an  individual,  whether  he  be  inno- 
cent or  guilty,  I  consider  him  justified  in  refusing  all  reply,  until  brought 
into  a  court  of  justice.  I  wish  you  much  success  in  your  endeavours  to 
benefit  the  public,  and  more  to  your  individual  advantage.  With  the  hope 
that  they  may  be  brought  to  combine,  I  am,  with  esteem. 

Your  sincere  friend, 

(Signed)  • 

R.  R.   Henry,  Esq. 


I  regret  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  give  the  letter  entire,  with  the  name  of 
the  writer,  for  if  so,  it  would  cause  the  greatest  alarm  in  the  minds  of  both 
inspectors  and  ex-inspectors,  agents  and  their  partisans,  that  such  a  man 
should  advise  the  course  he  evidently  does,  for  we  all  know  that  the  ".simple 
remedy''  which  we  have  in  our  "own  hands,"  means  the  "grand  jury,"  which 
the  "joint  committee"  subsequently  (Journals  of  the  Senate,  Extra  Session, 
October  30,  1828,  63,)  also  say  is  the  proper  forum,  the  practices  charged 
being  not  "  evasions,  but  palpable  violations''  of  the  statute.  Ry  the  by, 
this  was  also  the  opinion  of  governor  Clinton  and  Mr.  Mc  Call  in  1827. 

Happily  for  me,  I  now  have  nothing  directly  to  do  with  inspectors,  (un- 
less I  choose  voluntarily  to  act  before  a  grand  jury)  as  the  imprudence 
and  impolicy  of  my  opponents  in  making  fraudulunt  entries  upon  the 
Journals  of  both  Houses,  fraudulent  returns  to  the  legislature,  but  above  all, 
the  imprudent  letter  of  the  honorable  Mr.  Johnson  to  his  friend  Colonel 
Stone,  (exposing  the  deceptive  nature  of  the  entries  made  by  the  clerks, 
on  the  Journals,  6th  and  7th  April  last,  960  and  413,)  the  unwise  circular 
of  (he  comptroller,  and  the  "neglects"  of  positive  duty  under  the  177th  and 
1 86th  sections,  afford  "  Remedies,"  putting  certified  copies  on  oath  out  of  the 
question. 

I  wish,  sir,  on  principles  of  public  policy,  to  draw  your  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  importance  of  the  reports  to  the  legislature,  and  (in  a  political 
and  moral  point  of  view,)  to  put  the  question  home  to  you,  (as  conservator 
of  the  laws,)  whether  the  deceptive  reports  of  Messrs.  Snow,  Dumont, 
Mc  Carthy,  &c.,  are  not  more  blameable  than  the  total  neglect  to  make 
any  by  Messrs.  Cooper,  Remsen,  Lowerre,  Howard,  &c.,  (see  list  of  de- 
faulters,) to  report  both  "  fees"  and  "emoluments  derived  from  his  office  ;" 

11 


78 

because  they  made  no  attempts  to  deceive  the  legislature,  (by  "  or"  or 
"  and")  as  others  have  done.  See  the  reports  and  tlie  estimates  predicated 
on  them  for  particulars. 

The  practical  results  from  the  "  neglects"  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the 
Comptroller  and  Attorney  General,  under  the  177th  and  186th  sections, 
will  be  exemplified  in  a  few  days  hence. 

No  return  having  been  made  this  year  (preceding  year)  to  auctioneers, 
under  the  17 1st  section,  no  duplicate  can  be  transmitted  to  the  comptroller 
under  the  174th  section,  of  course  all  of  us  inspectors  of  ashes  give  the  all- 
important  175th  section  the  "  go  by,"  and  have  only  (with  the  inspectors  of 
"  provisions,  produce,  or  merchandise,")  to  file  the  oath,  No.  17G,  (to  es- 
cape the  penalty  of  the  177th  section.)  "  That  there  have  been  no  arti- 
cles subject  to  inspection,  stored  with  him,  which  have  remained  not 
claimed  by  the  owner  within  one  year  from  the  time  they  shall  have  been 
inspected.''  How  inspectors,  who  for  thirty  consecutive  years  past,  have 
been  selling  the  unclaimed  property,  (ashes,  beef,  pork,  flour,  &c.)  illegally 
at  private  sale,  and  have  not  paid  the  proceeds  to  the  owners  nor  into  the 
treasury  of  the  state,  can  conscientiously  take  the  above  oath,  I  cannot 
say,  but  I  suppose  that  the  comptroller  will  excuse  them ;  for  I  will  be  told 
by  inspectors  of  ashes,  that  Hart's  5th  section  legalises  all  illegal  sales,  under 
the  acts  of  1813, 1822,  1827,  and  1828,  and  that  they  paid  the  proceeds  to 
the  owners;  which  mere  averment  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  fact,  that 
they  have  done  so  till  the  contrary  is  made  "  legally''  to  appear.  That  the 
legislature  having  sanctioned  the  report  of  the  joint  committee,  declaring 
the  word  *'  LegaP^  to  be  "  Unnecessary^'^''  they  are  the  sole  judges  of  title, 
and  have  the  right  to  insist  upon  or  dispense  with  the  exhibition  of  "  ori- 
ginal bills  or  receipts,''  and  to  issue  "duplicate  bills"  when  and  to  whom  they 
please,  without  giving  any  account  to  any  one. 

Did  the  legislatare  in  passing  Hart's  5th  section,  and  rejecting  the  word 
*■*■  IcgaP  as  '■'■unnecessary^''''  contemplate  such  results  from  their  acts? 
Certainly  not.  I  repeat  that  they  have  never  been  so  deceived  since  the 
days  of  Col.  Durr.  Look,  sir,  at  tlie  dangerous  nature  of  the  "  discretion 
ary  power"  vested  in  us  of  issuing  duplicate  bills  uncontrolled.  Suppose 
an  inspector  have  a  note  to  pay,  and  not  to  be  in  funds.  He  inspects  (or 
orders  his  deputy  to  inspect)  as  many  casks  of  the  "  trust  ashes"  as  are 
necessary,  (provided  the  "  scrapings"  and  other  "  unclaimed  ashes"  with- 
held/rom  absentees  are  not  sufficient)  puts  on  them  a  "fictitious  mark,"  say 
Andrew  Jackson,  writes  on  the  bill  the  "  mystical  word  duplicate,"  hands 
the  bill  to  his  clerk,  (or  broker,)  who  converts  the  ashes  into  cash,  and  when 
the  ashes  used  are  called  for  by  the  "  owner,"  he  supplies  their  place  from 
other  "  trust  ashes,''  by  substitution.  See  my  letter  to  the  president  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  as  far  back  as  the  13lh  of  June,  1825,  part  of 
which  will  be  found  in  the  extracts  from  the  Morning  Courier  herewith, 
to  which  I  beg  leave  to  draw  your  particular  attention.  As  I  shall  probably 
have  to  become  a  dealer  in  ashes,  1  shall  not  deem  myself  safe  should  this 
"  discretionary  power"  be  left  in  the  hands  of  inspectors  general  or  depu- 
ties ;  for  as  Governor  Van  Buren  justly  remarks,  "  Such  power  cannot  b© 
entrusted  to  any  one  without  danger  of  abuse.''  I  put  the  question  res- 
pectfully to  your  excellency,  whether  constitutionally  this  communication 
can  be  withheld  from  the  legislature,  although  it  implicates  political  friends 
directly  or  indirectly  ?  The  proofs  of  their  deviations  from  duty  should  be 
on  file  in  the  respective  offices,  and  to  them  I  appeal  for  the  absolute 
truth  of  the  charges. 

As  my  175th  section  requires  the  inspector  to  swear  that  he  had  *'  duly 
accounted  with  tlu;  owner  or  agent  for  all  the  ashes  delivered  to  his  care 
as  the  law  directs,"  and  "  that  he  had  not  by  himself,  or  any  other  person 
or  persons  in  his  employ,  made  out  any  invoice,  weigh-note,  or  bill  of  in- 
spection of  a  later  date  than  the  time  such  ashes  were  duly  inspected,  and 


79 

that  the  same  were  emptied  out  of  the  cask  or  casks,  and  duly  examined, 
at  the  date  of  every  such  invoice,  wcig-h-note,  or  bill  of  inspection  :"  As  I 
knew  that  if  I  had  in  one  instance  violated  the  law,  1  must  perjure 
myself  in  taking,  it,  I  applied  in  writing,  (on  25th  and  26th  July,  1028,) 
to  my  clerks,  foreman,  and  cooper,  (all  in  the  employ  of  my  opponents,)  to 
ascertain  from  them  whether  they  knew  of  one  instance  in  which  I  had 
violated  the  duties  of  my  office  ;  if  so,  I  would  deem  it  as  a  favour  to  make 
it  known  to  me  ;  for  as  I  would  not  sell  the  unclaimed  property  in  my  pos- 
session, (under  "duplicate"  bills,  issued  to  "  convenient  friends,"  to  pay 
the  fine  of  ^250,  under  the  177th  statute,  as  others  were  doing-,)  I  conse- 
quently would  resign  my  commission,  as  I  had  no  funds  to  pay  the  forfei- 
ture for  "neglect"  alluded  to,  without  aid  of  friends,  which  I  did  not  think 
fit  and  proper  to  ask  under  existing-  circumstances. 


[No.  159.] 

New-York,  28th  July,  1828. 
Dear  Sir, 

In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  25th  instant,  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  saying  that  according  to  my  knowledge  and  belief,  you  always  strictl}'^ 
complied  with  the  inspection  law  ;  and  that  you  need  not  scruple  to  take 
the  oath  prescribed  in  its  full  force  and  meaning.  This  I  will  testify  at 
any  time,  and  under  any  circumstances. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 
(Signed)  N.  CONKLTNG. 

R.  R.  Henry,  Esq. 


[No.  160.] 

New- York,  18th  August,  1828. 

Dear  Sir, 

From  all  that  I  know  during  the  three  years  that  I  was  employed  in  your 
store  as  foreman  and  cooper,  I  fully  believe  that  you  always  complied  with 
the  inspection  law,  and  conscientiously  fulfilled  the  duties  of  your  office. 
Yours  with  respect, 
[Signed]  J.  POWERS. 

R.  R.  Henry,  Esq. 


[No.  161.] 

New- York,  2Sd  October,  1828. 

I  was  in  Mr.  R.  R.  Henry's  employ  from  the  first  of  May  1826,  to  the 
first  of  May  1828,  except  about  six  or  eight  weeks  in  December  1827  and 
January  1828,  and  in  that  time  there  never  was  a  bbl.  of  ashes  passed  in 
Mr.  H.'s  office  without  emptying  out  the  same,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge 
and  belief,  and  that  bills  and  brands  were  never  altered  without  a  strict 
compliance  with  the  inspection  law. 

[Signed]  C.  V.  V.  LEONARD. 


80 

As  I  found  the  coloured  man,  IsaSb,  rather  fearful  that  it  might  give 
offence  to  his  employer,  Mr.  Inspector  Snow,  1  did  not  urge  him  to  give  a 
written  certificate,  as  he  assured  me  he  would  swear  to  what  Mr.  Conkling 
certified  (with  whom  he  served)  whenever  I  found  it  necessary. 

I  took  a  pretty  bold  stand,  by  appealing  to  persons  in  the  employ  of  my 
very  enemies,  one  of  whom  intimated  to  me,  if  he  knew  of  the  least  devia- 
tion he  would  have  refused  me  the  certificate ;  but  as  he  did  not,  he  was 
constrained  to  give  it. 

I  shall  conclude  with  the  concluding  words  of  the  suppressed  part  of  my 
report  of  24th  January  last ; 

"  The  evidence  that  my  allegations  are  true,  will  be  exemplified  in  the 
attempts  that  will  be  made  to  smother  inquiry  into  their  truth  or  falsity, 
although  the  charges  so  deeply  afiect  character  both  public  and  private." 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  in  haste, 

Your  most  obedient  servant. 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
His  Excellency  Governor  Throop,  Albany. 


[NOTE.] 

If  your  Excellency  will  turn  to  pages  19,  20,  21,  22,  and  23,  you  will 
find 

Five  specific  charges  against  the  Comptroller : 
One  specific  charge  against  the  Attorney  General : 
Two  specific  charges  against  the  Clerk  of  the  Senate: 
Two  specific  charges  against  the  Clerk  of  the  Assembly. 
Referring,  for  proofs,  to  the  documents  (by  date,  &c. )  in  their  own  ofiices, 
by  which  they  stand  "  self-convicted." 

I  have  no  doubt,  in  my  own  mind,  that  if  the  legislature  order  an  inquiry, 
that  corruption  may  be  brought  home  to  some  of  the  parties,  for  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  such  men  would  do  such  highly  illegal  acts  as  have 
been  done  without  some  kind  of  compensation.  The  charges  are  marked 
thus  [4-]. 

The  fraudulent  returns  of  inspectors  under  the  1 85th  section,  I  have 
marked  [  X  ]>  including  myself,  in  case  the  Clerk  of  the  Assembly  can  pro- 
duce the  report  from  me,  (which  he  has  entered  on  their  journals)  with  the 
"emoluments"  (derived  from  my  office)  omitted,  and  ending,  *' AH  which 
is  respectfully  submitted,  by  R.  R.  Henry."  But  that  he  cannot  do,  and 
therefore  has  committed  a  fraud  on  ma  and  the  public. 

Who,  sir,  will  have  the  confidence  they  have  had  in  the  journals,  when  the 
deceptive  nature  of  the  entries  made  by  the  procurement  of  the  chairmen  of 
the  joint  and  special  committees,  (and  their  coadjutors)  on  the  4th  and  6th 
February  last,  but  especially  on  the  Gth  and  7th  April  last,  are  known  ?  Which 
latter  entries  are  exposed  in  the  imprudent  letter,  written  by  the  Hon.  Mr. 
Johnson  to  his  friend  Col.  Stone,  which  I  would  not  venture  to  make,  was 
it  possible  to  "  yazoo"  all  the  Commercial  Advertisers  of  the  7th  April  last, 
to  a  file  of  which  I  now  refer- you,  and  to  Noah's  Enquirer  of  15th  April, 
in  which  he  says  the  Colonel's  "  Albany  Correspondent"  is  the  Hon,  Mr. 
Johnson,  without  which  authority  I  would  not  state  it  as  a  fact,  as  it  is 
scarcely  to  be  credited  that  after  getting  the  clerks  to  make  the  deceptive 
entries  relative  to  my  memorial,  he  should  deliberately  sit  down  and  ex- 
pose the  Clerks  and  Speaker,  as  it  will  appear  from  the  journals  the  im- 
portant letter  of  0th  February  last  was  withheld  from  the  Houses  by  him, 


81 

provided  always  that  Mr.  Johnson  dehvercd  it  (with  the  memorial)  enclosed 
open  to  him. 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
His  Excellency  Governor  Throop. 


The  following  notes  were  written  onthe  margin  of  the  preceding  document, 
explaining  each  paragraph,  and  the  page  now  given,  refers  to  their  place 
in  this  pamphlet. 

Page  44.  No  mention  is  made  of  this  letter  by  the  speaker  or  the 
clerks  in  the  journals  960  and  413,  nor  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Johnson  in  his 
disclosures  of  the  real  contents  of  the  memorial  to  his  friend  col.  Stone,  at 
least  the  colonel  does  not  mention  it  in  his  paper  of  7th  April  last.  Why 
the  letter  &c.  were  suppressed,  should  be  a  subject  of  legislative  inquiry. 
See  journals  960  and  413. 

Page  45.  To  the  Hon.  Mr.  Johnson  covering  the  letter  to  the  speaker, 
enclosing  memorial  open  for  his  perusal  and  delivery. — It  was  withheld 
from  the  assembly  from  27th  February  till  the  6th  April,  see  journal  960  ; 
by  somebody  was  smuggled  through  the  house,  sent  to  the  senate,  and  was 
suppressed  by  the  committee  on  the  judiciary.     See  journals  413,  &.c. 

Page  47.  I  have  minutely  examined  the  journals  of  the  senate,  and 
fmd  that  the  "  committee  on  manufactures,"  to  whom  my  report  was 
referred  on  the  4th  February  last,  153  ;  and  the  "  committee  on  the  judi- 
ciary," to  whom  my  memorial  (supplementary  to  the  report,  and  mention- 
ed as  such  in  the  suppressed  part  of  it,)  have  both  withheld  their  reports  on 
their  merits.  Was  there  ever  more  unfair  management  in  any  public 
body?  See  the  deceptive  entries  on  the  journals  of  the  senate,  153  and 
413,  and  of  tlie  assembly,  389,  398,  and  960,  rendered  necessary  by  those 
made  in  the  senate. 

Page  Ad.  Underrated.  Mr.  Brower,  I  understand,  has  j^600,  and  the 
contingent  charges  are  more. 

Pa ""e  51.  Mr.  "  William  Dumont  called  on  Mr.  Henry  for  the  purpose 
of  jborrowing  his  brand  of  1827  to  affix  to  some  casks  of  P.  ashes  stored 
with  Mr.  James  Brown,  which  he  said  were  inspected  some  time  in  Dec. 
1826.  He  says  he  acts  upon  the  principle  that  ashes  inspected  in  cold 
weather  will  not  deteriorate,  and  that  the  mere  alteration  of  the  brands 
from  one  year  to  another  does  not  deceive  the  purchaser,  but  rather 
advknces  his  interests  in  the  shipment  and  sale  abroad.  The  principle 
assumed  by  Mr.  D.  was  considered  erroneous  by  Mr.  Henry  on  the  ground 
that  the  alteration  even  for  a  day,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  was  as  bad  as 
for  three  months."     April  13, 1827.       (Signed)    C.  V.  V.  LEONARD. 

Page  52.  Shewing  fraudulent  sale  and  conversion  of  "  trust  ashes,'' 
by  Mr.  inspector  Snow's  men,  with  his  knowledge  and  consent  under 
"  duplicate"  bills  issued  to  foremen,  &c. 

Page  52.  Shewing  fraudulent  omission  of  scrapings  (on  the  copies  of 
the  bills  from  which  they  were  taken)  by  major  Samuel  Cooper,  proving 
the  necessity  and  propriety  of  authorising  absentees  who  have  reason  to 
.suppose  they  have  been  cheated,  to  call  for  certified  copies  of  copies  on 
oath. 

Pag-e  53.  "A  document"  received  from  the  then  ex-inspector  Isaac 
Bogart,  on  the  1 1th  April,  1827.  "  Abraham  Hilton  says  that  there  were 
some  ashes  carried  to  C.  Villie'o  commission  store,  from  Lent's  store  in 
Stone  street,  and  that  they  were  all  seconds  and  thirds,  and  that  he  dubbed 


82 

off  all  the  barrels  by  order  of  C.  Sherry,  which  barrels  were  afterwards 
sent  to  Snow,  White,  Sz  Brower's  store,  and  they  were  passed  as  first  sort 
ashes.  (Signed)  RICHARD  FARRELL. 

New- York,  24th  December,  1806. 

P.  S.  Nicholas  Jeffries  says  that  he  saw  the  above  A.  Hilton  shave  the 
brands  off  the  barrels  "  in  the  commission  store  of  C.  Villie.'' 

Note.  The  oral  testimony  of  James  W.  Lent,  and  John  B.  Thorpe, 
Esqrs.  (Isaac  H.  Bog-art  and  others,)  will  shew  that  such  was  the  practice 
in  1806,  and  that  it  was  the  practice  since  then,  can  be  made  to 
appear ;  ashes  as  I  have  reason  to  believe,  having  been  "  Sherryed''  as 
lately  as  24th  June  last,  if  not  since  then. 

Page  54.  A  document  also  received  from  Mr.  Bogart  on  11th  April, 
1827.  "  I  cannot  take  an  oath  for  any  man."  The  observation  was 
made  last  fall,  and  inquiry  was  made  by  capt.  Page,  what  the  red  D  was 
on  the  barrels  for  ?  The  answer  made  by  Mr.  John  Shumway,  was,  to 
take  care  of  the  scrapings.  Capt.  Page  told  Mr.  Card  of  it — Mr.  Card 
wanted  to  know  the  author.  Capt.  Page  told  Mr.  Card  he  would  tell  him 
the  author  for  a  gallon  of  beer." 

Note.  I  can  make  it  appear  by  oral  testimony,  that  when  the  inspec- 
tor came  to  sign  the  bills,  he  asked  the  clerk  "  how  he  had  made  out  his 
copies,''  and  was  told  agreeably  to  order,  (had  omitted  them  on  the  copies) 
when  the  inspector  remarked,  "  it  was  too  bad  to  do  so,  but  if  he  did  not, 
he  would  lose  his  business." 

Note.  There  should  no  longer  be  "  clerk's  copies,''  they  should  be 
made  "  inspector's  copies''  by  requiring  us  to  certify  on  the  "  Back  of  the 
copy,"  that  they  contained  the  entire  weight  of  all  the  ashes  which  the 
casks  contained,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  and  if  the  owner  or  agent 
doubted  the  fact,  that  the  inspector  should  be  directed  to  verify  the  copies 
by  oath. 

Page  55.  Comptroller's  office,  Albany,  January  8th,  1829. 

Sir — "  I  understand  that  doubts  exist  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the 
inspectors  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  as  to  the  statutes  now  in  force,  relative 
to  their  official  duties.  Chapter  17  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  "  of  the  regu- 
lation of  trade  in  certain  cases,''  which  went  into  operation  on  the  1st  day 
of  May  last,  contains  most  of  the  provisions  relative  to  the  inspection  of 
ashes.  These  will  be  found  in  articles  3  and  12  of  title  2d  of  this  chapter. 
There  is  another  law  passed  at  the  recent  session  of  the  legislature  on  the 
same  subject,  now  in  force.  The  17th  cliapter  has  once  been  distributed 
to  the  several  officers,  to  whose  duties  it  has  relation,  and  extensively  pub- 
lished in  a  volume  of  Revised  Statutes.  All  are,  or  can  make  themselves 
familiar  with  its  provisions  ;  but  as  the  statute  recently  enacted  has  only  to 
be  published  in  the  state  paper,  I  shall  therefore  subjoin  a  copy  to  this  let- 
ter and  solicit  from  inspectors  a  comphance  with  its  requirements.  The 
last  act  went  into  operation  on  the  day  of  its  enactment. 

I  am  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  W.  L.  MARCY. 

To  Robert  R.  Henry,  Esq. 
Inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes.  New- York.'' 

Page55.        Circular.     Comptroller's  office,  Albany,  July  11,  1829. 

Sir — The  following  law,  passed  at  the  last  November  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, not  iiaving  been  circulated  except  in  the  ordinary  manner  of  cir- 
culating the  laws,  1  have  thought  proper  to  have  copies  sent  to  officers 
whose  duties  it  importantly  concerns,  that  they  may  not  neglect  its  pro- 
visions from  an  ignorance  of  them.  A  careful  attention  to  the  provisions 
of  the  law  will  be  important  to  inspectors  and  auctioneers,  as  the  most 
rigid  adherence  to  them  will  be  recjuired. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  SILAS  WRIGHT,  Jun. 


83 

Page  58.  It  evidently  was  the  intention  of  the  legislature  in  requiring' 
yearly  reports  from  inspectors  of  "  provisions,  produce  or  merchandise,'' 
of  the  quantity,  quality,  value,  &c.  of  the  articles  insqoected  by  them,  (also 
separately  the  "  fees"  and  "  emoluments'')  that  at  every  meeting 
they  might  have  correct  official  information  on  those  most  important  sub- 
jects, not  only  for  their  own  immediate  uses  but  for  that  of  the  future 
historian  or  statistical  writer,  who  could  derive  all  the  information  they 
could  desire  relative  to  our  staple  articles,  in  the  most  authentic  and  com- 
pressed shape  from  the  journals  of  the  houses,  and  save  them  all  the  time 
and  trouble  of  making  personal  application  to  individual  inspectors  who 
might  find  it  for  their  interest  to  withhold  correct  information  as  to  quality, 
&c.  but  particularly  as  to  "  fees"  and  "  emoluments"  frorti  "  contingent 
remainders,"  alias  "  droits,"  as  such  minutia  might  lead  the  legislature  to 
curtail  them  in  their  income ;  consequently,  every  inspector  (but  one) 
chose  to  run  the  risk  of  paying  the  fine  of  two  hundred  dollars,  rather  than 
let  the  legislature  know  their  income  from  the  "  ofFs  and  ends"  of  beef, 
pork,  sample  flour,  scrapings,  unclaimed  ashes,  fish,  oil,  &c.  &c. 

Page  60.  Extracts  from  a  letter  from  the  hon.  James  McCall,  dated 
Rushford,  August  26,  1828.  "Your  favour  of  the  30th  ult.  has  come  to 
hand,  and  as  usual  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  some  person  in  your  station  takes 
an  interest  in  the  inspection  of  ashes,  so  important  an  article  for  exporta- 
tion. I  have  looked  at  the  174th,  173th,  and  ITGth  section  of  the  Revised 
Statute,  chapter  17,  of  which  you  speak,  and  cannot  understand  them  as 
you  do,  neither  the  177th,  which  was  (if  I  mistake  not,)  drawn  by  Mr. 
Spencer,  one  of  the  revisers  and  senator,  and  the  three  first  mentioned 
were  drawn  from  your  suggestions  tome;  and  I  do  not  presume  the  penalty 
in  the  177th,  will  excuse  you  inspectors  from  doing  your  duty.  It  is 
like  all  other  fines  ;  every  officer  is  liable  for  each  neglect  of  duty  to  the 
individual  sustaining  damage,  and  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  for  the  viola- 
tion of  the  law  in  relation  to' the  duties  of  their  ofdces,  and  nearly  all  the 
alterations,  (lie  should  have  said  except  in  the  76th  section  !  I ! !)  were  in 
your  suggestions.  I  shall  send  in  a  petition  for  the  alteration  in  the 
size  of  barrels  at  the  extra  session,  and  if  any  other  alterations  are  neces- 
sary, it  would  be  well  to  attend  to  it  at  the  same  time ;  and  should  your 
fears  be  realized  in  relation  to  the  177th  section,  I  will  be  ready  to  use  my 
influence  for  its  repeal.  I  make  it  a  point  to  send  you  my  ashes  for  inspec- 
ti'in,  and  am  in  hopes  you  will  be  appointed  the  inspector  for  the  city  of 
New- York,  as  there  is  only  one  to  be  appointed,  &c."  You  will  find.  Sir, 
the  copies  of  letters  to  and  from  Mr.  McCall  entire,  in  the  hands  of 
Messrs.  Spencer  &  Butler,  and  the  joint  committee,  and  the  originals  in 
my  hands  and  Mr.  McCall's,  in  case  a  legislative  investigation  takes  place. 

Page  62.  Certificate. — I  certify,  that  from  my  books,  it  appears  65 
casks  of  potashes  were  stored  with  me  in  No.  31  Washington  street,  ou 
28th  November  1826,  which  belonged  to  Mr.  Wm.  Dumont,  or  were 
stored  by  him,  which  ashes  were  never  inspected  while  in  my  possession, 
but  were  delivered  some  time  in  April  1827,  as  the  books  of  inspection 
and  receipts  will  show.  (Signed)  JAMES  BROWN. 

Page  62.  Extract  from  a  letter  from  John  V.  Henry,  Esq.  dated  Alba- 
ny, 19th  June,  1829.  "I  have  received  your  letter  of  12th  inst.,  but  that 
of  the  3d  to  which  you  refer,  has  never  been  delivered.  I  have  been  out 
of  town  until  this  day,  or  I  should  have  given  you  the  assurance  that  I  now 
do  with  utmost  readiness,  that  1  will  become  a  petitioner  for  your  discharge 
under  the  two-third  act,  (which  is  certainly  the  most  expedient  discharge) 
for  whatever  monies  you  may  he  indebted  to  me,  (and  the  monies  I  have 
paid  to  Judge  Yates  as  your  surety)  with  interest."  fSo  that  my  letter  of 
the  3d  June,  apprising  him  of  my  situation  was  intercepted,  and  I  lay  in 
jail  iu  consequence,  until  Ileury  Wilkes,  Esq.  was  apprised  of  my  silua- 


84 

lion  ;  what  think  you  of  that,  Sir?)  the  amount,  g9250  62  was  subscribed 
for  by  my  brother,  just  previous  to  his  sudden  decease. 

Page  63.  From  the  Morning- Courier  of  Saturday,  Uth  August,  1827. 
"  The  letters  of  Mr.  Henry,  already  published,  have,  we  find,  attracted 
the  notice  of  the  dealers  in  ashes,  more  particularly  on  the  subject  of  scra- 
pings. That  the  importance  of  this  part  of  the  ashes  in  a  pecuniary  view 
may  be  seen,  we  g-ive  a  statement  furnished  by  Mr.  Henry  ;  the  great 
leng-th  of  the  calculations  prevent  us  from  inserting  them  in  full,  but  we  ob- 
serve that  from  4231  casks  weighing  19025  0  9  there  was  taken  585  0  21 
scrapings,  (equal  to  3  1-11  per  cent,  or  15^  lb.  per  cask)  or  65541  lb.  at 
3i  cts.  g'i293  63,  an  amount  exceeding  the  inspection  fees  on  the  whole 
quantity."  Refer  to  the  Courier  for  the  other  calculations  and  the  rest 
of  the  editor's  remarks,  and  my  circular  of  22d  September  1826  entire, 
which  contains  "  secrets  worth  knowing." 

Page  64.  See  my  letter  to  the  comptroller  of  the  18th  June  last,  for 
some  very  interesting  particulars  on  this  subject,  which  the  legislature 
should  know. 

Page  64.  Return  to  the  requisition  of  Wm.  &  John  James  for  certified 
copies  12th  March  1829,  which  I  have  reason  to  believe  has  been  suppres- 
sed, as  they  will  not  give  the  name  of  the  real  owner. 

Page  65.  Note. — Instead  of  a  compliance  with  my  request,  a  verbal 
answer  was  given  to  the  "  bearer,"  which  he  certifies  in  writing  as  fol- 
lows: "  Mr.  James  said  in  answer  to  the  letter,  that  the  papers  were  mis- 
laid and  he  could  not  find  them,  and  further,  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the 
gentleman,  and  knew  not  where  he  lived,  but  if  Mr.  Henry  would  come 
down  to  the  store,  he  would  tell  him  about  them,  and  why  they  were 
renewed."  (Signed)  JOHN  CHADWICK. 

New-York,  16th  March,  1829. 

Page  66.  You  will  find  by  a  letter  of  22d  and  23d  October,  1828,  and 
18th  June,  1829,  to  the  Comptroller,  that  I  oflfered  to  secure  to  the  state 
from  30  to  50,000  dollars  for  the  people's  right  to  the  "unclaimed  proper- 
ty,'' held  or  placed  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance. 

Page  67.  Consequences  of  nominating  and  appointing  an  inspector 
general  and  withholding  this  communication  from  the  legislature. 

Page  71,  «Src.  Extracts  from  letter  to  President  Jackson,  dated  1st  Ju- 
ly, 1829.  "  In  the  letter  to  lieutenant  governor  Pitcher,  of  Uth  Novem- 
ber, 1828, 1  alluded  to  one  written  to  your  excellency  on  15th  December, 
1 823,  with  the  approbation  of  governor  Clinton,  but  Mr.  Clinton  did  not 
think  you  would,  under  your  then  existing  circumstances,  act,  as  sinister 
motives  might  and  would  be  imputed  to  you.  In  my  letter  to  Mr.  Pitcher 
I  mention  my  intention  of  addressing  you  when  seated  in  the  presidential 
chair,  (whicli  I  took  it  for  granted  would  follow  almost  as  a  matter  of 
course,)  when  it  would  become  your  duty  to  act  as  the  "  Executive."  With- 
out Secretary  Van  Bureri  has  seen  the  original  letter  (and  enclosures,)  to 
lieutenant  governor  Pitcher,  on  the  executive  files,  which  I  much  doubt, 
(as  they  have  also  got  into  the  habit  in  Albany,  of  suppressing  documents 
when  they  contain  disagreeable  matter.  See  the  proceedings  of  the  Sen- 
ate and  Assembly  on  4th  April,  30lh  October  and  4th  November,  1828, 
and  4th  and  9th  February,  and  6th  April  last,)  the  letter  will  be  news  to 
him  and  also  to  my  brother,  John  V.  Henry,  Esq.  neither  of  whom  have  the 
most  distant  conception  that  every  act  of  mine  in  relation  to  this  subject, 
which  has  appeared  in  the  public  prints  since  12th  October,  1823,  met 
with  governor  Clinton's  marked  approbation,  who  took  the  trouble  minute- 
ly to  examine  all  the  documents  in  the  case  which  he  returned  to  mo  with 
tluiibljowing  note :  "  Mr.  Clinton's  compliments  to  Mr.  Henry,  and  returns 
the  documents  which  he  Iras  read  witii  all  the  interest  which  such  impor- 
tant developments  will  naturally  inspire."  October  1 2th,  liJ23.  "  Hav 
ing  the  delibenitc  opinion  of  such  a  man  as  De  Wjtt  Clinton  that  I  was 


85 

right,  I  cared  not  if  all  the  world  (who  had  not  seen  the  documents,)  said  1 
was  wrong-.''  *'  The  fraud  of  the  collector  of  St.  Marys,  which  stood  most 
prominent  in  governor  Clinton's  estimation,  (on  account  of  its  practical 
and  immoral  effects,)  was  the  absolute  conversion  of  Bilbo  Si.  Haven's 
bond,  for  ^1588,12,  (given  for  duties,)  by  the  collector  on  10th  July,  1815, 
(who  transferred  it  to  the  surety  on  the  bond,)  William  Gibson,  Esq.  in  part 
payment  of  negroes  ;  which  fact  Mr.  Gibson  testifies  to  before  the  govern- 
ment agent,  Mr.  Habersham,  in  March  1822,  and,  (I  am  told,)  repeats  it 
on  his  second  examination  at  St.  Marys  in  November  and  December  1823, 
consequently  the  governor  was  of  opinion,  (provided  the  president  and  sec- 
retary had  no  doubts  of  Mr.  Gibson's  veracity,)  that  the  collector  should 
be  instantly  removed,  even  if  innocent  of  every  other  charge,  as  I  held  Sec- 
retary Crawford's  written  stipulation  of  10th  November,  1821,  that  one  or 
any  one  of  the  charges  proven  would  be  sufficient,  and  that  the  collector 
bad  admitted  one  relative  to  the  negro  inspectors,  was  stated  by  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  Mr.  Habersham,  to  be  a  fact,  in  addition  to  which  the  sec- 
retary has  admitted  in  his  letter  of  10th  November,  1821,  that  upwards  of 
six  years  after  the  use  of  the  bond  it  was  unpaid.''  "  The  mere  use  of  Bil- 
bo's bond,  satisfactorily  proven,  David  Gelston,  Esq,  (the  former  collector 
of  this  port,)  said  should  have  caused  collector  Clark's  removal,  even  if  the 
principal  and  interest  were  found  to  be  paid  in,  but  emphatically  so  when 
absolutely  converted,  which  I  risk  nothing  in  saying  it  has  been,  and  so 
will  be  found,  if  inquiry  is  made  at  the  treasury."  "  In  either  case,  (use 
or  conversion,)  I  take  it  for  granted  your  excellency  will  order  a  superce- 
dias  to  be  issued,  and  not  allow  the  collector  the  honor  of  resigning."  "  If 
Mr.  Bilbo's  evidence  has  not  been  taken,  it  can  (if  deemed  necessary,)  be 
obtained,  as  he  is  living  at  Savannah ;  but  Mr.  Havens,  1  am  sorry  to  say, 
died  some  time  ago,  (on  the  Ohio,  I  think,)  on  his  way  from  New  Orleans, 
otherwise  I  would  forward  you  his  affidavit.  He  told  me  verbally  the 
bond  was  given  by  their  house  for  duties.''  "  The  landing  of  Admiral 
Cockburn  at  St.  Marys  in  January,  1815,  was  a  cover  for  every  thing; 
for  only  to  aver  that  Cockburn  and  his  myrmidons  have  taken  the 
property,  settled  many  a  public  and  private  account.  The  fortuitous  cir- 
cumstance of  John  Bessent's  murder  five  months  afterwards,  showed  to  the 
persons  present  when  the  body  was  found,  that  ibetween  20  and  30,000 
dollars  of  the  public  property  had  been  withheld  by  the  administrators  on 
the  settlement  of  7th  January,  1815.  Has  it  been  accounted  for? — when  ? 
— by  whom?  &c.  are  very  important  inquiries.  One  thing  is  certain,  that 
Bilbo's  bonds,  (one  of  those  found  with  the  body,)  has  not,  and  the  inference 
is  a  fair  one,  that  the  residue  has  not  Perhaps  they  may  be  able  to  tell  at 
the  treasury  without  the  aid  of  the  documents  in  my  hands;  but  I  doubt  the 
fact  very  much,  as  secretary  Crawford,  in  his  letter  of  10th  November, 
1821,  admits  that  it  was  a  matter  of  total  uncertainty  what  bonds  collector 
Clark  had  received  from  the  administrators.  What  a  field  was  opened  to 
him  safely  to  substitute  bad  bonds  for  good  ones,  &;c."  "  In  that  respect 
Osborne's  list  would  beof  great  importance  to  the  treasury  as  a  check  on 
Clark  and  Crews."  "  It  would  gratifj'  me  much,  sir,  if  you  would  order 
copies  of  the  testimony  to  be  forwarded  to  me,  as  I  have  a  curiosity  to 
know  what  was  sworn  to,  (on  the  second  examination  particularly,)  and  all 
I  can  offer  in  return,  being  poor,  is  the  list  of  bonds,  &c.  (obtained  from 
Clark's  agent,)  which,  by  the  by,  are  important  papers,  and  which  the 
treasury  should  have  in  possession  in  order  to  adjust  their  accounts  under- 
standingly,  not  only  with  collector  Clark  but  with  Crews,  the  surviving 
administrator  of  Bessent,  relative  to  bonds,  treasury  notes,  bank  paper, 
&c.  which  the  administrator  and  collector  ''  Remembered  to  forget''  to  ac- 
count to  the  treasury,  as  found  with  the  murdered  body  of  the  junior 
Bessent,  on  the  11th  June,  1815,  the  particulars  of  which  will  be  found  ia 

12 


86 

my  letters  to  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  dated  4th  and  16th  January, 
1823,  delivered   by  the  honorable  John   D.  Dickinson." 

Extracts  from  my  letter  to  President  Jackson,  dated  29th  October,  1829. 
"  The  case  of  the  collector  of  St.  Marys,  and  the  inspectors  here,  on  princi- 
ple is  precisely  the  same.  Tlie  collector  used  and  converted  the  public 
property  in  the  shape  of  custom  house  bonds,  &c.  to  private  uses.  The 
inspectors  here  in  the  shape  of  ashes,  (fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,)  the  "  offs 
and  ends"  of  beef,  pork,  flour,  meal,  fish,  &c."  "  This,  sir,  is  an  impor- 
tant question  which  I  have  been  (here  at  St  Marys  and  Washington,) 
contesting  on  principle,  and  I  am  persuaded  neither  the  Executives  of  the 
general  or  state  governments  will  blame  me  for  taking  every  honorable 
step  to  get  legislative  decisions,  fwhether  collectors  or  inspectors,  after 
having  not  only  used,  but  absolutely  converted  the  public  property  to  pri- 
vate uses,  should  be  allowed,  not  only  to  retain  oflBce,  but  the  proceeds," 
(and  I  might  have  added  by  "  undue  influence,"  in  both  places.)  "My 
policy,  (since  June  last,)  has  been  to  get  into  your  Excellency's  hands  and 
that  of  the  Executive  powers  of  this  state,  all  the  documents  in  relation  to 
the  frauds,  suppressions,  &c.  at  St  Marys,  Washington,  New-York  and 
Albany,  so  that  when  I  go  personally  I  may  have  little  or  nothing  to  do 
when  there,  but  to  apply  to  the  respective  legislatures  by  memorial  and  to 
refer  to  the  Executive  files  for  the  proofs."  (Note — I  put  the  Comptroller 
completely  "  off  his  guard"  by  the  letter  of  loth  June  last,  as  I  did  the 
president  on  the  2d  July  last,  to  whom  I  say,  "  If  however  you  Conscienti- 
ously think  the  practices  of  collector  Clark  and  his  abettors  have  not  been 
illegal  and  only  immoral,  I  of  course  must  acquiesce  and  suppose  I  have 
been  under  a  delusion.  I  have  fairly  "out  generalled,''  all  my  opponents 
both  at  Washington  and  Albany." 

As  the  journals  cannot  be  "  yazood"  they  will  bear  me  out  at  Albany,  as 
I  tell  the  president  certain  documents,  which  were  put  into  my  hands  on 
14th  June,  1824,  will  at  Washington.  I  seek  no  office,  consequently  as 
I  have  my  opponents  on  the  "  hip,"  I  will  handle  them  "  without  gloves,'' 
as  "  half  way  measures"  when  principle  is  at  issue,  I  have  found  from  ex- 
perience to  be  the  worst  that  can  be  pursued,  consequently  I  tell  the  presi- 
dent, (in  my  letter  of  29th  October  last,)  ''  I  am  determined  before  I  die, 
(life  and  health  granted  me  by  a  good  providence,)  to  have  a  perusal  of  the 
suppressed  testimony  taken  by  Mr.  Habersham,  in  1822  and  1823,  with  the 
letters,  &c.  which  have  uniformly  been  refused  me  (by  Messrs.  Monroe, 
Crawford  and  Adams,)  because  as  matters  and  things  are  now  situated  the 
removal  of  the  collector  of  St.  Marys,  and  the  inspectors  here  will  not  fully 
satisfy  me,  as  the  question  should  be  settled  legislatively  whether  the  Exec- 
utive powers  should  continue  the  persons  in  office  of  high  trust  after  the 
fact  is  brought  home  to  their  personal  knowledge  (by  undoubted  testimony) 
that  they  had  "  abused  their  trustsy''^  not  only  by  the  use,  but  the  absolute 
conversion  of  the  public  property  to  private  uses,  which  has  frequently 
been  done  by  the  collector  of  St.  Marys  and  the  inspectors  (of  provisions, 
produce  and  merchandise,)  in  New-York  and  Albany,  and  when  it  will  ap- 
pear that  in  both  places  I  have  been  sacrificing  my  interest  to  my  principles. 
The  eclat  of  bringing  both  Executives  up  to  the  "  ring  bolt"  (unaided  and 
unassisted)  almost  simultaneously  on  the  same  principles,  will  be  another  in- 
ducement to  act,  as  "sinister  motives"  cannot  well  be  imputed  to  me  when 
"  I  oflend  the  powers  that  be,"  ask  for  nothing  but  common  justice,  and  act 
in  defence  of  character,  which  has  been  grossly  vilified  and  abused  for 
years  past." 

"  I  had,  sir,  a  high  compliment  paid  me  by  a  person  on  whose  judgment 
I  place  great  reliance,  who  has  said  I  had  displayed  a  greal  deal  of  art  but 
no  artifice  (or  in  other  words,  had  had  the  art  to  conceal  my  art)  in  the  ma- 
nagement of  the  St.  Marys,  Washington,  and  Albany  business;  for  that  it 
appeared  1  had  uniformly  told  my  opponents  what  I  loould  do,  and  if  they 


87 

suffered  eventually  from  not  believing  me,  it  was  their  own  faults;  for  sup- 
posing- such  an  open  enemy  was  not  to  be  reg-arded,  they  one  and  all  laid 
common  prudence  totally  aside  by  putting-  the  means  for  their  own  convic- 
tion on  record,  both  at  St.  Mary's,  Washington,  New-York,  and  Albany, 
which  saves  me  all  the  trouble^of  seeking  for  evidence  :  witness  the  acts  of 
the  clerks  and  Mr.  Johnson,  who  should  have  burnt  the  memorial  when  he 
got  possession  of  it,  instead  of  sending  it  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
senate.  The  comptroller  and  attorney  general  may  yet  save  their  "  BaconP 
by  complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  177th  and  186th  sections  ;  but 
Mr.  Bacon  of  the  senate  will  with  difficulty  save  his  "  Bacon"  if  I  choose 
to  push  the  "affair,"  which  I  regret  he  has  involved  himself  in,  as  I  have 
a  respect  for  him  and  Mr.  Sager,  but  for  Mr.  Hart  and  Mr.  Johnson  who 
"  lead  ihem  astray"  from  the  line  of  official  duty,  they  should  be  exposed. 
'<  Trifling  events,  sir,  you  see  may  lead  to  "  important  results." 

"  This  communication  will  be  particularly  interesting  to  secretary  Van 
Buren,  as  so  many  of  his  political  friends  are  implicated  in  the  "  affair." 

Pa^6  78.  Sir, 

Agreeably  to  your  request,  I  hereby  certify  on  one  occasion  Mr. 

came  to  your  office  for  some  inspection  bills,  and  on  giving 

him,  amongst  others,  a  small  bill  for  scrapings,  he  asked  you  why  you  did 
not  keep  such  small  parcels,'  as  Mr.  Snow  did,  until  they  filled  a  barrel, 
and  then  render  a  bill,  as  it  was  troublesome  to  make  account  of  sales  of 
such  small  parcels.     Yours  respectfully, 

[Signed]  N.  CONKLING. 

New-York,  18th  September,  1829. 

Page  79.  I  hereby  certify  that  in  the  summer  of  1825,  Mr.  William 
Dumont  came  to  Mr.  R.  R.  Henry's  inspection  office,  and  in  conversation 
with  him  and  me,  he  said  he  was  in  the  habit  of  rendering  bills  for  scrap- 
ings without  making  the  entry  of  the  weigh-note  copy  required  by  law. 
I  do  not  recollect  the  reason  he  gave  for  the  omission. 

(Signed)  N.  CONKLING. 

New- York,  14th  Novem.  1829. 

Page  80.  Corruption  suggested  against  the  comptroller,  attorney  gene- 
ral, clerks,  &;c. 

Page  80.  Imprudent  letter  from  the  hon.  Mr.  Johnson  to  Col.  Stone, 
published  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser  of  7th  April,  1829. 


[SUPPRESSED.]  ^ 

To  His  Excellency  Governor  Throop. 

New-York,  1st  Januart,  1830. 

Sir, 

I  send  your  Excellency,  herewith,  (officially)  "  A  communication,  dated 
31st  December  1829,  relative  to  illegal  practices  in  some,  and  corrupt 
practices  in  other  offices  of  the  government,  referring  to  documents  in  their 
own  offices,  by  date,  &c.  for  positive  proofs  of  my  allegations,  and  to  other 
documents  on  the  executive  and  legislative  files,  and  in  the  hands  of  indi- 
viduals named,  for  other  direct  and  collateral  evidence  of  the  substantial 
truth  of  the  facts,"  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  draw  your  particular  attention  ; 
all  which,  with  the  extracts  from  the  Morning  Courier,  (and  notes)  here- 
with, show  conclusively  the  absolute  necessity  of  amendments  to  the  I7th 


88 

Chapter  of  the  Revised  Statute,  (which  may  with  propriety  be  called  the 
"  17th  chapter  of  blunders")  to  protect  the  absentee  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  many  of  which  sections  would  have  been  amended  in  the  sessions 
of  1828  and  1829,  had  the  members  "not  in  the  secret"  been  aware  of  the 
contents  of  my  memorials  of  the  3d  April  and  8th  October  1828,  suppressed, 
the  parts  of  ray  report  (forwarded  24th  and  Slst  January  last)  referred  to 
the  committee  on  manufactures  and  the  special  committee,  but  especially 
to  the  memorial  supplementary  to  the  report,  (and  mentioned  as  such  in 
the  reports  and  letter  to  the  Speaker  of  9th  February,  also  suppressed) 
which  memorial  was  sent  by  the  Assembly  to  the  Senate  on  the  6th  April, 
and  was  by  them  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  judiciary,  which  report, 
memorial,  and  letter  were  suppressed  by  their  respective  committees,  as  the 
journals  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  will  conclusively  show. 

I  take  it  for  g-ranted  your  excellency  will,  from  a  sense  of  "  constitutional 
duty,"  make  the  contents  of  this  communication  known  to  the  legislature, 
under  which  impression  I  shall  withhold  the  memorial  and  affidavit  (alluded 
to)  relative  to  the  Clerks,  as  both  the  Houses  (from  a  sense  of  justice  to 
them,  the  public,  and  myself)  will  then  be  bound  in  "  duty,  honour,  and 
conscience,"  to  ascertain  promptly,  whether  "  spurious  reports"  and  other 
deceptive  entries  had  been  made  on  their  journals  on  the  4th  and  6th  Feb- 
ruary, and  6th  and  7th  April  last,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  which  allegations 
can  be  instantly  settled  merely  by  calling  for  the  reports  and  memorial,  and 
collating  them  with  the  "journal  entries"  made  by  the  Clerks. 

The  Hon.  Mr.  Johnson's  letter  of  6th  April  last,  to  his  friend  Colonel 
Stone,  (an  extract  from  which  the  Colonel  was  so  obliging  as  to  give  me, 
and  which  [  stand  ready  to  produce)  will  throw  much  light  on  this  "  mys- 
terious" subject.  It  may  be  found  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser  of  the 
7th  April  last,  a  file  of  which,  no  doubt,  can  be  found  in  Albany. 
I  am  very  respectfully,  Sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
Forwarded  2d  January  1830,  per  P.  G.  Hildreth,  Esq. 


[SUPPRESSED.] 
The  Hon.  Silas  Wright,  jun.  Comptroller,  Albany. 

New- York,  January  5,  1830. 

Sir, 

I  transmit  you  herewith  the  affidavit  required  by  my  176th  section, 
introduced  with  the  174th  and  175th  sections  into  the  "general  provisions" 
of  the  Revised  Statutes,  chapter  17,  by  the  Hon.  James  M'Call  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  section  I  requested  him  (by  letter  of  16th  October,  1827)  to 
have  introduced  into  the  revised  laws,  which  Mr.  M'Call  deemed  a  suffi- 
cient compliance  with  my  wishes,  it  being  made  to  operate  retrospectively 
by  the  words,  "  That  there  have  been,  &c."  Copies  of  my  letters  either 
to  or  from  Mr.  M'Call,  you  will  find,  sir,  in  the  hands  of  the  Hon.  Truman 
Hart,  and  of  Messrs.  Spencer,  Butler,  Broughton,  Maynard  and  Hayden, 
to  which  I  refer  for  particulars. 

The  following  is  the  paragraph  alluded  to  in  my  letter,  on  which  the 
175th  section  was  predicated  (as  were  other  amendments)  which  will  ap- 
pear from  his  letters  of  27th  October,  1827,  and  26th  August,  1828. 


89 

♦♦I  wish,  sir,  on  behalf  of  your  constituents,  many  of  whom  have  un- 
knowingly been  sufferers,  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  clause  which  I  wish 
to  have  added  to  the  inspection  law,  calling  upon  me  and  the  other  inspec- 
tors (by  a  day  to  be  fixed)  to  make  a  return  to  the  comptroller,  on  oath, 
of  all  ashes  which  for  thirty  consecutive  years  past,  have  been  directly  or 
indirectly  withheld  from  the  absentee,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  stor- 
ed for  inspection  and  otherwise,  (which  includes  scrapings,  pickings,  and 
fine  ashes,  as  I  am  desirous  to  ascertain  the  power  of  conscience  in  cer- 
tain cases  in  which  scrapings  have  been  withheld  from  your  immediate 
constituents,  (and  others  who  can  be  named)  and  of  which,  at  the  present, 
they  are  ignorant  of." 

I  was,  sir,  satisfied  with  the  174th  175th,  and  176th  sections,  (the  words 
"  one  year  or  more"  being  inserted  in  the  175th)  until  the  23d  July,  1828, 
when  I  jocosely  asked  Mr.  Inspector  Remsen,  how  he  would  be  able  to 
swallow  M'Call's  bolus.  No.  175,  or  the  pills  No.  170,  when  the  fool  let  the 
"  cat  out  of  the  bag"  by  intimating,  that  a  friend  in  the  legislature  had  got 
inspectors  the  privilege  to  commute  for  the  returns  (under  sections  171, 
174,  175,  or  176)  on  the  payment  of  a  forfeiture  for  "  neglect"  of  ^250, 
under  the  177th  section  no  report  made  under  the  171st,  rendering  the 
transmission  of  "duplicates"  under  the  174tk  impossible  ;  (of  course  the  all 
important  175th  section  would  be  a  nullity,  when  it  was  optional  to  take 
the  oath  176,  or  suffer  the  forfeiture  for  "  neglect"  (which  the  proceeds  of 
12  casks  would  pay)  consequently  the  Inspector  Snow  and  others,  were 
selling  off  their  "  stock"  of  unclaimed  ashes  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection  ; 
and  so  he  was,  or  would  do  also. 

On  further  investigation,  1  found  that  it  was  actually  the  fact,  that  Mr 
Snow  had  sold,  through  Mr.  broker  Van  Wyck,  and  his  foreman,  Wright 
(and  others  I  can  name);  and  some  time  afterwards,  I  ascertained  that  Mr. 
Remsen  had  also  sold  of  his  "  stock,"  through  his  clerk,  Mr.  Nath.  Conk- 
ling,  to  Cornell  «&  Cooper,  G.  Merle,  &c. 

The  amendments  which  I  had  made  to  Hart's  6th  and  1 1  sections  (act 
14th  November,  1828)  through  the  Hon.  Benj.  F.  Butler,  I  apprised  your 
predecessor  of,  on  the  1st  and  13th  of  January  last,  and  yourself  on  the 
21st  January,  30th  May,  and  18th  June  last,  by  letters  and  afiidavits,  for 
particulars  of  which  I  must  beg  leave  to  refer  specially,  and  to  my  letter 
to  Mr.  Butler  of  11th  September,  1828,  in  which  I  give  him  my  reasons 
why  the  penalty  of  the  177th  section  should  be  increased  to  two  thousand 
five  hundred,  or  three  thousand  dollars,  or  forfeiture  of  office. 

That  gentleman  (Mr.  Butler)  never  did  a  wiser  act  in  his  life  than  in 
making  the  amendments  alluded  to ;  and  it  was  a  providential  thing  for  the 
public  and  myself  that  I  thought  of  him,  as  the  joint  committee  (generally) 
had  rejected  all  my  amendments  on  the  plausible  ground,  that  the  malprac- 
tices complained  of  were  not  ''  evasions  but  palpable  violations  of  the  sta- 
tute."    See  report  on  the  journals  of  the  senate,  1828,  page  65. 

Having  been  so  long  absent  from  Albany,  I  was  unaccLuainted  with  the 
superior  merits  and  talents  of  Mr.  Butler,  until  September  last,  when  I 
happened  to  express  my  surprise  to  my  brother,  (the  late  John  V.  Henry) 
that  so  young  a  man  as  Mr.  Butler  should  be  his  only  associate  in  the  great 
"  will  cause,"  when  he  told  me,  his  clients  could  not  well  have  made  a  wiser 
selection. 

Should  I  get  into  a  "  scrape''  in  consequence  of  a  communication  made 
under  date  of  31st  ult.  to  the  governor,  this  "broad  hint"  from  my  brother, 
will  show  me  where  to  look  for  "law  advice,"  although  I  must  confess  for 
framing  amendments  to  a  potash  law,  I  would  prefer  the  "advice"  of  more 
practical  men  than  Mr.  Butler,  or  his  equally  "  law  learned"  associates. 
I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes 


90 

Note. — I  have  come  across  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  Mr.  M'Call,  of  16tb 
October,  and  his  reply  of  27th  October,  1827,  to  which  I  have  subjoined  a 
copy  of  his  letter  of  the  10th  October,  1827,  w^hich  I  send  for  your  inform- 
ation. 

T  wish  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  returns  which  have 
been,  and  which  may  be  made  under  M'Call's  (alias  Henry's)  176th  sect., 
which  every  inspector  of  "  provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise"  through- 
out the  state,  must  from  necessity  make  this  year  (as  well  as  myself)  no 
one  of  us  having  made  reports  the  "  preceding  year"  under  the  17ist  sec- 
tion to  "  any  auctioneer." 

I  have  reason  to  believe  there  will  be  some  variations  from  the  words  of 
the  statute,  as  "  That  there  have  been  no  articles,"  &c.  is  rather  a  puzzle 
to  some  of  my  coadjutors,  who  have  been  "  dabbling"  with  "  unclaimed 
property"  under  "  duplicate"  bills,  the  proceeds  of  which  are  held  directly 
or  indirectly  in  abeyance.  See  my  letters  to  your  predecessor  of  22d  and 
23d  Oct.  1828,  and  1st  and  13th  January  last,  and  to  yourself  of  21st  Ja- 
nuary and  30th  May  last,  but  specially  that  of  the  18th  June  last ;  but  per- 
haps the  proceeds  may  have  been  paid  into  the  treasury  by  inspectors  Bo- 
gart,  Snow,  Cooper,  and  others,  on  your  requisitions  made  since  the  date 
of  mv  last. 


[ENCLOSED.] 

City  of  New- York,  ss. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  Robert  R.  Henry,  Inspector  of  Pot  and 
Pearl  Ashes  for  the  city  of  New-York,  who  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and 
says, 

That  by  the  17th  chapter  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  title  2,  article  12,  sec- 
tion 176,  "  General  Provisions,"  it  is  enacted, 

*'  If  no  such  bill  or  invoice  shall  have  been  delivered  to  any  auctioneer 
during  the  preceding  year,  by  any  such  inspector,  he  shall  notwithstanding 
transmit  to  the  comptroller  on  the  first  day  of  January,  in  each  year,  an 
affidavit,  stating  that  there  have  been  no  articles  subject  to  inspection  stor- 
ed with  him  which  have  remained  not  claimed  by  the  owners  within  one 
year  from  the  time  they  shall  have  been  inspected." 

And  thisdepouent  further  testifies  and  says,  that  having  delivered  no  in- 
voice or  bill  to  any  auctioneer  the  "  preceding  year,"  he  does  in  conformity 
with  the  requirements  of  the  statute  declare. 

That  there  have  been  no  articles  subject  to  inspection  stored  with  him 
which  have  remained  not  claimed  by  the  owner  within  one  year  from  the 
time  they  shall  have  been  inspected.     And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

(signed)        R.  R.  HENRY. 
Sworn  the  5fh  of  January  before  me 

J.  Hammond,  Assistant  Justice. 


To  the  Hon.  Francis  Granger. 

New-York,  13th  January,  1830. 

Sir, 

The  affidavit  you  have  herewith,  was  begun  under  the  impression  that 
my  old  acquaintance,  Silas  Wood,  Esq.  would  have  been  elected  to  the 


91 

Senate  :  and  when  apprised  of  the'defects  in  the  Revised  Statute,  Chapter 
17,  and  the  "  illegal"  means  made  use  of  to  prevent  amendments,  he  would  . 
no  doubt  have  applied  prompt  corrections,  had  he  been  elected.     Since 
then  it  has  been  laid  aside,  as  I  know  no  person  in  the  Houses  sufficiently 
independent  to  act  in  the  business  a^inst  such  powerful  oppouents. 

I  have,  since  the  receipt  of  the  Governor's  message,  added  to  it  all  after 
the  words  "  Hints  for  additional  amendments,"  with  a  view  of  sending-  it  to 
my  family  and  friends  in  Georgia,  as  a  ''  clew"  to  the  last  paragraph  in  the 
message,  showing  that  if  "  lobby"  influence  was  on  the  decrease,  that 
*'  back  stairs"  influence  had  "  increased,  was  increasing,  and  ought  to  be 
diminished." 

On  reflection  it  occurred  to  me,  that  the  draft  would  answer  all  the 
purposes  for  my  children,  and  to  send  the  fair  copy  to  you,  sir,  that  in  case 
death  should  remove  me  suddenly,  (as  he  did  my  brother,  John  V.  Henry) 
or  other  casualties  should  accrue  to  prevent  my  attending  personally  at 
Alban)^,  you  might  have  a  manual  in  your  hand,  (from  a  practical  man) 
showing  what  a  "  worthless  thing"  the  17  th  Chapter  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
(which  I  call  the  chapter  of  blunders)  is,  when  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  your 
constituents,  (who  are  deeply  interested)  you  will  have  the  errors  in  it 
remedied  ;  for,  without  the  aid  of  an  efficient  person,  my  individual  exer- 
tions will,  as  heretofore,  be  counteracted  by  "  back  stairs"  br  "  undue 
influence."  See  my  letter  on  that  subject  to  the  "  special  committee," 
herewith. 

My  situation  at  the  present  juncture  (and  that  of  all  the  other  inspectors) 
will  exemplify  the  fact,  that  the  Revised  Statute  is  a  "  worthless  thing." 
Either  legally  or  illegally  I  got  rid  of  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  in  my  pos- 
session in  1828;  so  that  I  have  had  no  report  to  make  in  1829  to  "any 
auctioneer,"  under  the  171st  section :  of  course,  I  had  no  "  duplicates"  to 
transmit  to  the  Comptroller,  under  the  1 74th  section,  the  "  preceding  year;" 
and  as  the  filing  of  the  all-important  175th  section  is  made  to  depend  on 
that  contingency,  1  give  the  oaih  the  "  go-by,"  and  in  order  to  escape  the 
penalty  of  the  177th  section,  (6th  and  11th  of  Hart's  law)  I  have  transmit- 
ted the  affidavit  required  by  the  176th  section  to  the  comptroller,  (a  copy 
of  which  and  the  letter  I  send  herewith)  so  that  if  I  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  violating  the  duties  enjoined  positively  (and  prohibited  negatively)  in  the 
175th  section,  yet  I  go  "  scot  free,"  and  could  in  this  way,  from  year  to  year, 
avoid  filing  that  oath.  No.  175,  as  long  as  the  legislature  allow  the  inspec- 
tors power  to  issue  "  duplicates"  under  the  "  discretionary"  power  without 
limitation,  a  power  which  Gov.  Van  Buren  justly  remarks  cannot  be  en- 
trusted to  any  one  without  danger  of  abuse. 

By  the  by,  sir,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Governor's  message 
relative  to  "  discretionary  power"  was  predicated  on  my  letter  and  affidavit 
of  1st  January  1829  ;  and  there  is  a  probability  that  what  Governor  Throop 
says  relative  to  "lobby"  influence,  (in  his  last  paragraph)  was  by  way  of 
"  set-ofi""  to  what  I  say  of  its  existence,  in  my  letters  of  31st  ult.  and  1st 
instant  (forwarded  per  P.  G.  Heldreth,  Esq.)  in  my  charges  against  the 
clerks,  comptroller,  and  attorney  general,  which  you  will  find  marked  on 
the  margin,  (of  the  document  herewith)  "specific  charges,"  which  if  you 
read  in  connexion  with  the  affidavit  and  letter  to  the  attorney  general,  of 
7th  February  last,  I  am  inclined  to  think  you  will  say  that  men  in  their 
situations,  who  will  tamely  submit  to  such  charges,  should  not  be  allowed 
to  fill  such  important  and  highly  confidential  stations,  and  because  docu- 
ments in  their  own  offices  are  referred  to  in  proof  of  the  charges. 

The  175th  section  out  of  the  question,  with  the  "  sad  mistakes"  in  the 
76Lh  section  (made  by  recommendation  of  the  revisers  in  their  85th  section) 
unrepealed,  with  unsigned  copies,  what  do  the  inspector  and  his  men  want 
more  ?  Nothing.  For  we  can  do  as  we  please,  the  171st  and  176th  sec- 
tions remaining  as  they  now  are  leaving  us  the  sole  judges  as  to  title,  with 


92 

the  power  to  issue  "  duplicates"  to  whom  we  please.     Should   unlimited 
powers  be  entrusted  to  us  one  moment  longer  ? 

I  beg  leave  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  requisition  of  Messrs. 
Wm.  &  John  James,  for  certified  copies.  Only  give  the  absentee  the  power 
(whenever  he  thinks  he  has  been  cheated  outjof  his  scrapings)  peremptorily 
to  demand  that  we  should  verify  the  copies  (that  have  been  issued  signed 
or  unsigned)  by  signature  and  oath,  and  they  will  be  comparatively  safe  in 
future,  with  this  "  rod  of  correction"  over  us.  See  Conkling's  letter  in 
mine  to  Governor  Throop,  for  other  particulars,  and  the  important  amend- 
ments to  the  64th  and  176th  sections  (to  protect  the  rights  of  individuals  and 
the  state)  towards  the  close  of  the  affidavit. 

Without  the  governor  should  lay  my  communications  of  the  31st  ult. 
and  1st  instant,  before  the  legislature,  and  they  raise  a  committee  with 
power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  I  cannot  go  to  Albany  until  Febru- 
ary, and  consequently  the  absentee  will  continue  to  suffer  under  the  17th 
chapter  of  "  blunders.''  If,  jiowever,  I  find  you  country  gentlemen  are 
content  with  the  law,  imperfect  as  it  is,  I  should  be  ;  particularly  if  I  con- 
clude to  join  my  children  in  Georgia;  because,  then  the  "journal  entries'' 
rectified,  my  individual  purposes  would  be  answered. 

Your  constituents  and  friends  in  Ohio,  &c.  being  so  directly  interested 
in  this  affair,  will,  I  trust,  plead  my  excuse  for  the  liberty  I  have  taken  in 
addressing  you.     I  am,  in  haste,  very  respectfully,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 

Hon.  Francis  Granger, 

In  Assembly,  Albany. 


Note. — I  wish  you  to  draw  your  particular  attention  to  the  extracts  from 
a  letter,  dated  12th  June  last,  to  my  brother  John  V.  Henry,  Esq.  of  Al- 
bany, which  you  will  find  in  my  communication  of  the  31st  ult.  to  the 
governor,  because  every  "  man,  woman,  and  child"  in  the  state  is  inte- 
rested in  every  question  relating  to  the  accuracy  of  weights  and  measures  ; 
and  because  since  the  1st  instant,  on  or  about  200  casks  of  Albany  inspect- 
ed ashes,  unbranded,  contrary  to  the  64th  section,  and  with  private  marks 
in  lieu  of  the  brands  prescribed  by  law,  have  been  inspected  in  Bogart's 
office,  (and  some  in  Snow's  marked  A,)  which  is  prima  facie  evidence  of 
"Constructive, Legal,  and  Moral  fraud.''  Theashes  belonged  to  Messrs.  W. 
Durant  and  Co.  Mr.  Bogart  being  in  Albany,  I  appeal  to  him  whether  a 
single  cask,  (out  of  the  great  quantity  of  Albany  inspected  ashes)  received 
by  liim  last  season,  was  branded,  and  that  if  he  and  his  foreman,  Isaac 
Heddy,  did  not  designate  the  qualities,  &c.  from  them  as  quickly  from  the 
private  marks,  as  I  could  have  done  if  branded  ? 

Concealment  of  inspectors'  names,  places  of  inspection,  quality,  &c. 
what  can  all  tliis  mean?  For  an  explanation,  refer  to  the  letters  to  the 
governor  of  tiie  31st  ult.  and  1st  instant,  and  to  the  comptroller  of  UUh 
June  last;  but  especially  to  the  documents  accompanying  it,  dated  lllh 
Novcm.  1826,  29th  Oct.,  Island  3d  Novcm.,  1828,  and  others  referred  to 
in  them,)  which  will  disclose  "  secrets  worth  knowing.'' 

On  the  subject  of  omission  of  brands  and  substitution  of  private  marks, 
1  say  to  governor  Clinton,  in  my  letter  of  29th  September,  1827,  "The 
fact  is,  I  find  myself  bound  in  "  duty,  honour,  and  concience,"  to  put  a 


93 

stop  to  the  omission  of  brands  in  Albany  inspection  offices,  because  sortie 
16  or  18  years  ag-o,  I  j^ave  a  sanction  to  the  practice  in  the  case  of  Mr." 
W.  Gillespie,  of  Herkimer  county,  (who  is  probably  still  living,  and  may 
recollect  the  circumstance,)  but  until  I  became  an  inspector,  I  had  no  idea 
of  the  evil  consequences  which  had  grown  out  of  the  illegal  practice, 
combined  with  private  marks.'' 

The  affidavit,  (with  the  letter,  &c.  alluded  to  in  it,)  will  be  collateral 
evidence  of  that  and  other  facts.  Now  is  the  time  to  put  an  end  to  all 
illegal  practices,  (by  appropriate  amendments,)  or  never.  It  is  measures, 
and  not  men,  I  attack. 

Signed,  R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
Hon.  F.   Granger,  Albany. 

[Forwarded  through  Mr.  Wheeler.] 


To  Wm.  L.  Marcy,  Esq.  Comptroller,  Albany* 

[SUPPRESSED.] 

Inspector's  Office  of  Pot  and  Pearl  AsheSj 

New-Yoi-k,  22d  October,  1828. 

Sir, 

In  the  "  general  provisions"  of  the  Revised  Statutes  for  the  regula- 
tion of  the  inspection  of  "provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise,"  passed 
3d  December,  1827,  (and  which  went  into  operation  on  the  1st  May  last) 
you  will  find  the  following  enactment  : 

"  Section  177.  Every  inspector  who  shall  neglect  to  make  any  report 
on  affidavit  required  by  either  of  the  three  preceding  sections,  shall  forfeit 
two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  to  the  use  of  this  state,  and  the  comptroller 
shall  direct  the  district  attorney,  where  such  inspector  shall  reside,  to  pro- 
secute for  the  same." 

Putting  out  of  the  question  the  motive  for  introducing  the  above  section, 
which  was  to  render  the  three  sections  in  the  "  general  provisions,"  No. 
174,  175,  and  176,  introduced  for  me  through  the  Hon.  James  M'Call  (see 
copy  of  his  letter,  dated  26th  August  last,  forwarded  by  me  on  the  11th 
ult.  to  the  revisers,  John  C.  Spencer,  and  Benj.  F.  Butler,  Esqrs.  ;  and  my 
letters  to  them  explanatory  of  the  business)  a  perfect  "  dead  letter,''  I  ask 
on  general  principles,  was  there  ever  a  more  mischievous  section  introdu- 
ced into  a  law  ?  as  it  has  a  direct  tendency  to  render  inspectors,  their  clerks, 
foreman,  and  coopers,  not  only  careless  but  dishonest,  and  will  eventually 
lead  to  perjury  as  you  will  have  striking  instances  of  on  the  1st  Jan.  next, 
if  my  oaths  to  protect  absentees,  No.  175  and  17G  are  taken,  w^hich  the  le- 
gislature however  have  benignly  rendered  unnecessary,  provided  we  in- 
spectors will  (out  of  the  "contingent  fund"  accruing  from  ''unclaimed'' 
ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection)  spare  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
as  consideration  money,  which  will  then  vest  the  property  withheld  from 
the  owners  and  the  state  for  *'  thirty  consecutive  years  past"  in  us,  as  only 
three  payments  have  been  made  into  the  treasury  in  that  period,  which  I 
protest  against  as  an  inspector,  and  1  protest  against  it  as  a  merchant,(which 
I  may  be  compelled  again  to  become)  as  it  places  ever}'  absentee  at  the 
mercy,  not  only  of  an  inspector,  but  of  his  clerks,  foremen,  coopers,  and 
labourers,  who  all  know  tliat  for  the  petty  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  all  their  blunders  made  during  the  year,  whether  accidental  or  de- 
signed, can  be  covered  with  the  petty  sum  above  mentioned,  and  also  give 
my  oath  No.  175  and  176  the  "  go  by"  to  boot. 

13 


94 

If  the  legislature  will  appoint  me  an  inspector  general  of  pot  and  pearl 
ashes  (or  of  beef  and  pork,  which  I  vv^ould  prefer)  and  let  the  law  stand  ex- 
actly as  it  now  is,  they  may  strike  out  one  third  of  the  fees,  and  I  will  pay 
into  the  treasury  for  the  lease  to  do  as  I  please  from  one  to  two  thousand 
dollars,  and  I  will  make  money  by  it,  "  remembering-  to  forget''  to  correct 
any  errors  or  omissions  made  by  me,  my  clerks,  foreman,  &,c.  when  they 
happened  not  to  be  against  me,  as  the  oath  No.  175  out  of  the  question,  1 
could  act  at  discretion,  having  then,  in  fact,  only  Conscience  for  the  regu- 
lator, which,  too  frequently  "kicks  the  beam"  when  interest  is  in  the 
question. 

The  impolicy  of  granting  any  inspector  such  a  dangerous  privilege  as 
commuting  with  money  for  a  dispensation  from  any  positive  duty,  strikes 
rae  with  surprise,  having  been  an  "  eye  witness^  to  the  modes  and  manner 
of  giving  the  laws  the  "  go  by."  Having  a  spare  copy  of  my  letter  to  IjIs 
excellency  Governor  Clinton,  of  6th  March,  1827,  1  forward  it  for  your 
information,  and  for  minute  details  of  particulars  refer  to  the  executive 
files  for  my  letters  (with  documents)  dated  29th  September,  and  13th  Octo- 
ber, 1827. 

To  show  you,  sir,  the  absolute  necessity  of  your  immediate  official  inter- 
ference to  have  the  law  amended,  and  to  save  the  state  from  heavy  costs 
which  they  otherwise  will  incur,  I  beg  leave  to  give  you  a  copy  of  section 
174,  to  show  you  how  by  two  legislative  blunders  in  six  lines,  delinquent 
inspectors  will  escape.  The  person  who  drew  it  was  a  theorist,  and  under- 
took to  deviate  in  his  limitation  from  a  "  practical  man's"  using  the  "  pre- 
ceding year"  instead  of  "  thirty  consecutive  years,"  of  which  you  will  see 
the  practical  effects. 

"  Every  inspector  shall  annually,  on  the  first  day  of  January,  transmit, 
on  oath,  to  the  comptroller  a  duplicate  of  every  invoice  or  bill  of  such  ar- 
ticles, which  during  the  preceding  year  may  have  been  delivered  to  any 
auctioneer,  and  the  amount  received  by  him  on  the  sales  of  such  articles 
from  any  auctioneer." 

Now,  sir,  on  the  1st  of  January  next,  the  only  inspector  in  the  state  who 
can  or  will  transmit  to  you  "  duplicates,''  accompanied  with  the  oath  re- 
quired by  the  175th  section,  is  myself,  and  for  the  most  substantial  reason, 
every  other  inspector  in  the  state  having  within  the  "  thirty  consecutive 
years  past"  withheld  original  bills  and  reports  required  by  laws  of  1813  and 
1822)  to  auctioneers,  and  mean  to  withhold  them  (up  to  the  1st  of  January 
next)  under  section  171,  Revised  laws,  (to  take  advantage  of  the  legisla- 
tive mistakes  in  the  law)  consequently  you  will  have  to  report  them  as  de- 
faulters to  district  attornies  under  the  I77th  section,  without  they  take 
M'Call's  (alias  Henry's)  oath.  No.  176,  which,  if  they  do,  one  and  all  will  be 
deep  in  guilt  who  have  withheld  from  owners,  auctioneers,  and  the  public 
any  return  required  by  law  (the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  February,  1813, 
and  the  sections  3,  5,  and  17  of  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822);  but  happily  for 
the  defaulters  (or  delinquents)  the  legislature  has  released  them  from  this 
"  dire  necessity"  by  agreeing  to  accept  in  lieu  of  oaths  and  reports  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  in  money  from  each  of  them,  consequently  it  will  (on 
the  first  January)  if  paid,  vest  them,  in  fact,  with  the  rights  and  property  of 
unfortunate  owners  of  unclaimed  ashes,  who  by  casualties,  such  as  sudden 
death,  fire,  robbery,  carelessness,  &c.  have  lost  or  mislaid  their  original 
bills  or  receipts,  or  may  not  have  taken  any.  Whether  it  is  just  or  equita- 
ble, with  the  "  stroke  of  a  pen"  comparatively  to  give  away  the  property 
of  others,  without  their  consent,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say. 

There  are  two  ways,  sir,  of  taking  the  oath,  No.  176,  and  to  avoid  pay- 
ing the  penalty  of  the  177th  section.  On  reading  the  laws  of  1813,  1822, 
and  1 827,  I  find  that  in  all  of  them  the  legislature  have  neglected  to  say, 
the  person  "  claiming  or  demanding"  ashes  should  show  "  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  title"  by  exhibiting  their  bills  or  receipts,  consequently  the  laws 


95 

of  1813  and  1822  have  been  rendered  a  "dead  letter,''  merely  by  any  clerk 
foreman,  cooper,  or  other  "  convenient  friend"  saying,  '  I  claim  or  demand 
the  unclaimed  ashes  or  the  proceeds  ;'  and  further  to  cover  the  illeg-al  trans- 
action, actually  to  give  receipts  or  acknowledgments  for  the  ashes  or  the 
proceeds,  and  then  the  inspector  could  say  they  have  been  "  claimed  or  de- 
manded," which  he  could  do  with  perfect  safety,  because  no  holder  of  a 
bill  or  receipt  would  ever  think  of  calling  in  the  first  instance  on  the 
comptroller  for  his  ashes  or  proceeds,  but  as  a  matter  of  course  on  the  in- 
spector, -who  by  paying  him  the  proceeds  would  smother  inquiry  ;  but  should 
he  even  be  dissatisfied  at  not  receiving  interest  on  the  money  the  inspector 
could  with  propriety  say  to  him,  I  was  authorised  by  the  law  of  181 3,  to  sell 
the  ashes  after  they  had  been  unclaimed  for  twenty-four  months,  giving 
two  months  notice  in  the  public  prints  ;  but  the  law  out  of  the  question, 
common  prudence  forbade  me  looking  on  and  seeing  the  ashes  perishing 
in  my  hands,  and  not  to  prevent  a  total  loss  (by  converting  them  into  mo- 
ney) would  have  been  inexcusable,  and  he  might  add,  had  1  not  reason  to 
conclude,  that  some  accident  had  prevented  your  calling  once  at  least,  in 
twenty-six  months,  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  a  perishable  article,  and 
/the  very  circumstance  of  your  not  calling,  shows  at  least,  that  you  are  de- 
void of  common  prudence  and  are  not  a  careful  man  in  your  private  affairs  ? 
Thus  indirectly  compelling  the  owner  to  be  silent,  if  not  content,  and  of 
course  by  these  finesses  the  comptroller  was  kept  ignorant  for  years  past, 
that  a  single  cask  of  ashes  remained  unclaimed,  merely  by  the  inspector's 
silence  and  withholding  notices  in  the  state  paper,  and  others  from  the  own- 
ers, keeping,  of  course,  clerks,  foremen,  kc.  in  good  humour  by  largesses 
in  ashes,  or  the  proceeds  at  the  expense  of  the  owners  and  the  state  ;  by 
the  by,  the  largesses  at  times  having  been  munificent  in  the  extreme. 

If  you  examine  the  171st  and  176th  sections  of  the  revised  laws,  you 
will  find  the  legislature  have  in  both  been  silent  as  to  title,  consequently 
all  the  inspector  has  to  do  if  he  wishes  to  save  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars, is  to  get  the  "convenient  friend''  to  "  claim,"  and  he  can  then  swear, 
complying  with  the  letter,  but  violating  the  spirit  of  the  inspection  law. 

The  inspectors  and  their  partisans  (all  who  have  not  returned  unclaim- 
ed ashes,  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection  agreeably  to  the  laws  of  1813,  and 
1822)  contend,  that  as  these  laws  have  expired,  no  inquiry  can  now  legally 
be  made  into  any  acts  of  omission  or  commission  done  or  suffered  to  be  done 
up  to*  the  30th  April,  1828,  which  are  buried  in  oblivion,  and  that  they 
start  anew  on  the  1st  of  May,  under  the  revised  laws,  consequently  on  the 
1st  Jan.  next,  (although  eight  months  only  have  elapsed)  they  will  tender 
you  the  aflidavit  under  the  l76th  section,  that  they  have  no  ashes  which 
"  Have  remained  not  claimed  within  one  year  from  the  time  they  shall  have 
been  inspected."  Aware  of  the  finesse  or  evasion  (as  you  now  are  made 
officially)  you  will  no  doubt  say  "  one  year"  in  the  176th  section  carries 
you  "back  to  the  1st  January,  1828,  andthe  words  "  or  more,"  in  the  175th 
section  to  the  period  when  you  first  came  into  office.  The  reply  will  be, 
that  is  not  my  construction  of  the  law,  and  you  may  take  your  course. 
The  legislature  has  given  me  the  option  to  make  returns  or  not,  under  the 
penalty  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  under  the  177th  section,  that  is 
all  you  can  recover  ;  I  avoid  the  trouble  of  reporting,  and  I  give  Henry's 
I74th,  175th,  and  176th  sections  the  "  go  by,"  especially  his  positive  and 
negative  oath.  No.  175,  consequently  the  "contingent  fund"  accruing 
from  "  droits,''  held  or  placed  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance,  furnish 
ample  "  ways  and  means"  to  pay  the  forfeiture,  and  profit  by  laches  of  duty. 

If  the  most  important  sections  in  the  whole  law,  (introduced  by  me  to 
protect  the  rights  of  absentees,  and  my  own,  should  I  become  again  a  deal- 
er m  "provisions,  produce,  and  merchandise,")  can  be  thus  defeated  by 
finesse  and  management,  both  purchaser  and  seller  are  left  at  the  mercy  of 
the  inspectors  and  deputies,  (or  servants)  as  the  only  security,  I  repeat, 


96 

which  absentees  have,  is  Conscience  ;  a  very  weak  guarantee  indeed  when 
interest  is  in  question,  as  I  personally  know,  having  been  an  eye-witness 
too  frequently,  since  the  16th  of  August,  182 1,  of  the  fact ;  and  in  attempt- 
ing to  check  such  practices,  (deemed  prescriptive  fi'om  length  of  time  and 
usage)  I  liave  rendered  myself  so  unpopular,  that  the  predictions  made  7th, 
8th,  and  lOlh  March,  1825,  (see  letter  to  the  hon.  C.  D.  Coldeu,  of  29th 
March,  1025,)  has  become  prophetic,  viz  :  "  That  if  I  attempted  further 
to  run  counter  to  the  old  inspectors'  mode  of  doing  business,  as  to  scrap- 
ings, pickings,  and  fine  ashes,  I  might  remain  an  inspector,  but  without 
patronage;''  because,  forsooth,  the  right  to  withhold  the  "unclaimed"  ashes 
(both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection)  from  the  absent  owners  and  the  state,  and 
to  distribute  them  as  "  largesses,''  to  friends  and  dependants,  &c.  have  be- 
come prescriptive,  in  fact,  by  length  of  time,  and  uninterrupted  usage. 

INIy  question  whether  tiiey  had  had  the  consent  of  the  country  owners, 
and  of  the  comptroller,  as  sole  trustee  for  the  owners  and  their  represen- 
tatives, and  the  people  of  this  state,  to  act  as  "sub-trustees,"  was  very 
difficult  to  answer. 

You  will  find,  sir,  in  my  memorials  of  3d  of  April  and  Cth  instant,  and 
in  my  report  of  the  16th  instant,  (printed  by  order  of  the  assembly,)  un- 
der the  135th  section,  that  I  have  requested  the  legislature  to  authorise 
you  officially,  or  as  Trustee,  to  ask  me  and  other  inspectors,  how  much 
of  such  ashes,  (fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,)  or  the  proceeds  we  hold  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  in  abeyance?  and  to  make  full  disclosures  to  you  on  oath 
as  trustee,  and  I  will  take  the  lead,  and  answer  peremptorily  and  fully,  and 
will  account  forthwith. 

I  am,  however,  told  that  the  influence  of  inspectors  of  "  provisions, 
produce,  and  merchandise,"  both  in  and  out  of  the  houses,  will  be  too 
powerful  for  me.  I  have  admitted  the  fact,  and  to  their  astonishment, 
have  said  that  I  will  call  in  your  official  aid  as  comptroller,  on  behalf  of 
the  state,  and  as  sole  trustee  of  owners,  &c.  which  would  constrain  you, 
from  a  sense  of  "  duty,  honor,  and  conscience,"  to  make  the  business 
known  to  the  legislature  in  your  official  capacity  ;  for  if  the  other  inspec- 
tors are  permitted  to  retain  the  "  unclaimed"  ashes  or  the  proceeds,  (fit  or 
unfit  for  inspection,)  which  they  now  hold  directly  or  indirectly  in  abey- 
ance, then  the  legislature  should,  in  common  justice,  permit  me  to  hold  the 
unclaimed  ashes,  which  I  have  still  to  report.  I  refer  you  for  much  infor- 
mation on  this  subject,  to  the  editors  of  the  Albany  Argus,  who  published 
a  part  of  my  circular  in  September,  1826  ;  but  it  will  be  necessary  to  read 
the  whole  to  understand  it  properl)'. 

I  will  now,  sir,  as  some  excuse  for  inspectors,  proceed  to  show  you  and 
the  public,  that  the  legislature  have  by  their  unwise  enactments,  actually 
led  the  -'old  ones''  into  "  temptation,"  whose  example  has  also  lead  the 
''  junior  ones"  to  withhold  returns  required  by  law,  of  unclaimed  ashes, 
(both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,)  as  they  have  admitted  they  have  on  hand, 
ashes,  or  the  proceeds  of  them,  which  1  understand  one  of  the  "juniors"' 
solemnly  avers  he  will  not  make  returns  of  until  the  old  inspectors  and  ex- 
inspectors  do  so. 

So  much  for  their  "  bad  precedents,''  for  tiiey  say,  (I  being  poor  and  im- 
employed,)  I  am  no  "  precedent''  at  all,  although  tliey  admit  I  act  accord- 
ing to  law,  but  say  common  usage  is  against  me,  which  practice,  if  the 
legislature  approve  of,  I  wish  to  ascertain  through  you,  sir. 

Act,  25th  February,  1813,  section  12.  "That  wlienever  any  pot  or 
pearl  ashes  which  now  are  or  hereafter  shall  be  stored  with  any  inspector 
of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  for  inspection  or  otherwise,  and  shall  not  be 
claimed  or  demanded  by  the  owner  or  owners  thereof,  within  two  years 
from  tlie  time  the  same  shall  have  been  inspected,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
inspector,  at  his  discretion,  to  sell  and  dispose  of  the  same  at  public  auc- 
tion, giving  two  months  public  notice  in  one  of  the  newspapers  printed  in 


97 

i\ye  city  of  New- York,  and  the  newspaper  published  by  the  printers  of  this 
state  at  Albany,  describing-  as  nearly  as  may  be  the  marks  on  the  barrels 
containing  the  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  and  the  proceeds  of  such  sales,  after  • 
deducting  all  costs  and  charg-es  and  expenses,  and  all  claims  of  the  said 
inspectors  or  otherwise,  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  this  state,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  owner;  and  he  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  the  same  on  fur- 
nishing- satisfactory  proof  of  ownership  to  the  comptroller.'' 

One  of  three  things  is  certain,  either  that  the  section  was  drawn  by  an 
inspector,  and  palmed  on  a  member,  or  by  a  person  deep  in  the  secret 
practices  of  inspecting-  officers,  or  by  a  mere  theorist,  who  knew  nothing 
about  the  routine  of  the  business.  Look  at  the  section  and  its  practical 
effects. 

1st.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  inspector,  at  his  discretion,  to  sell  the  ashes 
at  public  auction,  consequently  if  he  did  not  think  it  ^t  and  proper  to  sell, 
he  acted  legally  ;  and  of  course,  to  withhold  the  proceeds  from  the  treasury. 
Note.  To  put  them  into  his  own  pocket  at  private  sale,  and  the  comptrol- 
ler not  aware  of  it  of  course. 

2d.  He  is  only  to  advertise  the  ashes  which  now  are  or  hereafter  shall 
be  stored  with  him  for  inspection  or  otherwise,  and  sell  them  at  public 
auction. — Note.  Having  previously  sold  most  of  them  at  private  sale,  he 
had  i^ew  if  any  to  advertise. 

3d.  If  claimed  or  demanded  even  by  a  person  pretending  to  be  the 
owner,  was  sufficient ;  and  he  might  legally  withhold  the  public  notice,  as 
the  section  does  not  say  he  is  to  furnish  "  satisfactory  ^jroof  of  ownership" 
to  the  auctioneer,  kc.  (by  the  production  of  bills  or  receipts,  the  only  ''le- 
gal" evidence  of  right)  consequently  a  clerk,  foreman,  cooper,  partner, 
or  other  "  convenient  friend"  only  ''  claiming  or  demanding,"  the  letter  of 
the  law  was  complied  with,  and  no  public  notice  of  sale  need  be  given,  as 
all  the  inspector  had  to  do  to  cover  every  thing,  was  to  take  a  receipt  or 
voucher,  from  the  "  fictitious"  owner,  for  the  ashes  or  proceeds.  The  in- 
spector ran  no  risk  in  doing  this,  for  should  the  "  real"  owners  ever  ap- 
pear with  the  bills  or  receipts,  settle  with  them  ;  and  if  none  appeared,  the 
ashes  or  the  proceeds  inured  to  the  inspector,  instead  of  escheating  to  the 
people  of  this  state,  as  was  undoubtedly  the  intention  of  the  legislature. 

4th.  Not  a  word  is  said  as  to  the  proceeds  of  ashes  which  had  previously 
to  1813  been  sold,  nor  of  scrapings  not  reported  on  the  copies  of  absen- 
tees, consequently  all  vested  in  the  inspector,  until  owners  appeared,  in 
propria  persona.  What  remained  on  hand  in  1814  of  the  "  offs  and  ends" 
of  ashes,  were  reported  to  Mr.  Robert  McMennomy  out  of  the  proceeds 
of  which  (between  one  and  two  hundred  barrels,)  only  about  ^230  was 
paid  into  the  treasury,  because  the  head  marks  were  effaced  by  time  and 
alkali. 

No  other  payments  were  made  into  the  treasury  under  this  act  (which 
expired  in  1822,)  although  frequent  sales  were  made  by  private  agents. 
I  could  mention  three  sales  or  conversions  to  the  amount  of  between  four 
and  five  thousand  dollars;  but  I  leave  each  inspector  to  make  such  disclo- 
sures to  the  trustee  as  Conscience  may  dictate  to  him,  as  that  is  the  only 
regulator,  the  "  statute  of  limitations,"  and  this  q,ct  placing  the  owners  and 
the  state  completely  in  subserviance  to  the  "  old"  inspectors,  the  servant 
being  literally  in  this  case,  the  master. 

There  is  one  simple  way  of  compelling  the  "  old"  inspectors  and  ex- 
inspectors  to  account,  viz  :  for  the  legislature  to  say  to  any  one  who  refuses 
and  will  take  the  advantage  of  lapse  of  time,  and  our  mistakes,  and  will 
withhold  property  not  their  own,  are  not  trust-worthy  persons,  and  shall 
not  be  employed  either  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  highly  confidential 
office  of  an  inspector  of  "provisions,  produce,  or  merchandise,"  for  the  time 
to  come.  This  would  be  perfectly  just,  and  equitable,  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances. 


98 

5th.  All  claims  of  the  inspector  or  otherwise,  to  be  deducted  from  (ho 
proceeds.  As  the  comptroller  nor  any  other  person  was  authorised  to  call 
an  ipspcctor  to  account,  this  was  a  sweeper.  He  took  all.  "  Lead  us  not 
into  temptation,"  &c.  If  the  law  of  1822  had  been  as  loosely  worded,  I 
do  not  know  what  would  have  been  the  consequence  as  to  myself. 

The  moment  that  such  a  shrewd,  in  tcllig-ent,  and  "longheaded"  man 
as  major  Cooper  cast  his  eye  on  the  section,  all  its  defects  were  apparent 
to  him,  and  that  he  could  act  at  discretion  ;  of  course  he  kept  himself  per- 
fectly quiet — did  not  trouble  auctioneers  and  printers — sold  the  ashes 
through  the  agency  of  his  confidential  clerks,  brokers,  &c.  at  private  sale, 
and  now  holds  the  proceeds  as  ''  sub  trustee''  to  the  comptroller  (without 
his  knowledge  or  consent)  either  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance. 

As  to  Mr.  Robert  Snow  not  being  so  "quick  sighted"  as  major  Cooper, 
he  published  I  haye  reason  to  believe,  one  notice  in  a  paper  in  this  city, 
(but  whether  he  did  in  the  state  paper  is  uncertain,)  as  ashes  were  actually 
sold  under  the  hammer  of  Mr.  McMennomy;  but  finding  the  head  marks 
were  effaced  by  time  and  alkali,  on  all  but  three  casks  (H,  &  W.  and  W. 
&L  S.,)  he  did  not  pay  the  proceeds  into  the  treasury,  as  they  must  from 
necessity  escheat  to  the  state.  To  cover  the  transaction,  a  receipt  it  is 
said  was  taken  from  a  "convenient  friend;''  but  in  what  way  he  shewed  the 
title  I  know  not, as  I  have  the  original  paper  containing  the  weight,  &c.  in 
which  ownership  of  only  the  above  three  casks  are  noticed.  Frequent 
sales  and  conversions  of  ashes,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  were  made 
both  before  and  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1813,  by  private  agents, 
but  not  a  cent  of  the  proceeds  are  in  the  treasury,  being  held  or  placed 
directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance. 

The  ex-inspector,  Isaac  H.  Bogart,  made  a  small  sale  of  the  "  offs  and 
ends''  of  casks  (which  happened  per  chance  to  remain  unsold)  under  Mr. 
McMennomy's  hammer,  which  he  actually  (by  mistake)  paid  to  treasurer 
Piatt  in  1814,  supposing  his  coadjutor  in  office  had  deposited  the  proceeds 
of  his  previous  sales,  but  finding  he  was  in  error,  he  also  withholds  the  pro- 
ceeds of  previous  and  subsequent  sales  as  "  sub  trustee"  to  the  comptroller, 
which  "leaking  out"  before  arbitrators  (Gurdon  S.  Mumford,  —  Kearney 
and  George  Warner)  was  made  known  to  the  governor,  and  Mr.  Hart 
then  of  the  senate;  in  consequence  of  which,  the  law  of  5th  April  1822  was 
passed,  materially  altering  the  policy  of  the  inspection  system,  as  to 
unclaimed  ashes  and  scrapings;  but  what  is  "passing  strange,''  not  a 
word  is  said  in  the  law  respecting  (he  proceeds  of  ashes  sold  at  private  sale, 
&c.  by  Bogart  and  others,  and  held  directly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance  ; 
and  what  is  more  so,  not  a  syllable  is  said  as  to  requiring  owners  or  pre- 
tended owners  to  shew  "satisfactory  proof  of  ownership''  by  producing 
bills  or  receipts,  merely  they  must  report  the  ashes  they  have  on  hand 
unclaimed.  It  has  been  ironically  remarked  that  inspectors  did  not 
require  the  aid  of  auctioneers,  having  taken  the  trouble  off  their  hands  by 
private  sales,  through  brokers,  clerks,  &c.,  and  as  they  were  not  called 
upon  to  account  for  the  proceeds,  they  would  not  voluntarily  do  so.  Let 
the  section  speak  for  itself. 

"  Section  17.  That  whenever  any  casks  of  pot  or  pearl  ashes,  or  the 
scrapings  or  cruslings  of  pot  or  pearl  ashes,  which  now  are  or  hereafter 
shall  be  stored  v^ith  any  inspector  of  pot  or  pearl  ashes  for  his  inspection, 
or  otherwise,  and  which  shall  not  be  claimed  or  demanded  by  the  owner  or 
owners  thereof  within  one  year  from  the  time  they  shall  have  been  inspect- 
ed, it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  inspector  to  deliver  an  invoice  or  weigh  note 
under  his  hand,  of  the  inspection  of  such  pot  or  pearl  ashes,  or  of  such 
scrapings  or  crustings  as  aforesaid,  and  describing  the  private  marks  as 
nearly  as  may  be,  or  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  to  some  public  auction- 
eer of  the  city  or  county  where  .'^uch  inspector  shall  reside,  and  such  auc- 
tioneer shall  sell  the  same  at  public  auction,  first  giving  six  weeks  notice 


99 

of  such  sale  in  one  of  the  newspapers  printed  in  the  city  or  coun(y  where 
he  shall  reside,  and  in  the  newspaper  pubhshcd  by  the  printer  of  this  state, 
describing-  the  marks  and  the  owner  or  owners  according-  to  the  invoice  or 
weig-h  note  of  the  inspection,  and  the  time  and  place  the  same  will  be  sold, 
and  he  shall  pay  the  proceeds  of  such  sales  to  the  treasurer  of  this  state, 
and  render  an  account  of  the  same  to  the  comptroller  after  deducting  and 
paying-  to  such  inspector  his  legal  fees  and  chaigX'S  thereon,  and  ;  ucli  other 
customary  and  other  charges  and  expenses  of  such  sale,  as  in  other  cases, 
which  sum  so  paid  to  the  treasurer  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  for  the  benefit  of 
the  owner,  and  he  or  they  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  the  same  on  furnish- 
ing- satisfactory  proof  to  the  comptroller." 

Note. — This  section  might  as  well  never  have  been  passed,  as  Messrs. 
Robt.  Snow,  Isaac  H.  Bog-art,  John  H.  Remsen,  and  Vv^illiam  Dumorit 
have  paid  no  attention  to  it,  no  notice  having  appeared  from  them  under 
this  act  to  auctioneers.  I  refer  to  my  report  to  the  assembly,  dated  Octo- 
ber, 1828,  under  section  185  for  all  notices  which  have  appeared. 

Can  languag-e  be  plainer  and  more  positive  than  this  ?  notwithstanding 
which,  six  years  have  elapsed  and  but  one  report  from  the  three  "  old"  in- 
spectors to  auctioneers  has  appeared  (from  Maj.  Cooper)  which  is  so  full 
of  omissions,  that  it  were  better  he  had  withheld  it.  I  refer  to  my  report 
to  tlie  legislature  of  16th  inst.  for  copies  of  all  the  reports  to  auctioneers 
which  have  appeared  under  this  act  to  which  so  little  attention  has  been 
paid  by  inspectors  (especially  the  3d,  5th,  and  17th  sections)  that  it  has  al- 
most literally  been  a  "  dead  letter,"  no  more  attention  having  been  paid  to 
it  than  suited  the  purposes  of  inspectors  and  their  patrons. 

Revised  Statutes,  passed  3d  December,  1827,  "  general  provisions." 

Section  171.  "  If  any  articles  subject  to  inspection,  and  stored  with  an 
inspector  shall  not  be  claimed  by  the  owner  within  one  year  from  the  time 
they  shall  have  been  inspected,  such  inspector  shall  deliver  to  an  auction- 
eer in  the  city  or  county  where  they  shall  reside,  an  invoice  or  bill  of  such 
articles,  specifying  the  quantity  and  quality,  and  the  brands  and  other  marks 
thereon,  and  also  the  names  and  residence  of  the  owner  or  person  deliver- 
ing- the  same  for  inspection,  according  to  his  information  or  belief." 

It  was  the  intention  of  Messrs.  Snow,  Remsen,  and  Dumont,  to  defeat 
the  intention  of  the  leg-islature  by  withholding  all  returns  under  this  sec- 
tion so  as  to  enable  them  on  the  1st  of  January  next,  to  take  advantag-e  of 
the  legislative  mistakes  in  174,  and  if  possible,  of  you,  in  the  I76th  sec- 
tion, although  they  admit  they  have  "  unclaimed"  ashes  (or  the  proceeds) 
which  have  not  been  reported  to  auctioneers  under  the  act  of  1822.  Should 
such  systematic  and  daring  violations  of  the  law  be  countenanced  when 
known  ? 

My  policy  in  this  communication  is  officially  to  bring  home  to  your  per- 
sonal knowledge  officially  as  comptroller  and  as  sole  trustee  of  the  fund  ac- 
cruing from  "unclaimed"  ashes,  the  fact  that  to  say  the  least,  they  have 
for  "  thirty  consecutive  years  past"  been  illegally  withheld  from  your  pre- 
decessor and  yourself,  and  of  course  with  the  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that 
you  will  make  it  known  to  the  legislature  officially,  and  also  the  errors 
in  the  174th  section,  which  if  not  amended  will  subject  the  state  to  heavy 
costs;  for  inspectors  who  have  not  reported  to  auctioneers,  can  of  course 
defeat  the  district  attorney  under  the  177th  section  by  pleading  the  impos- 
sibility of  transmitting  "  duplicates''  when  he  never  had  furnished  an  auc- 
tioneer with  an  original,  thus  profiting  by  his  own  wilful  and  designed  omis- 
sion of  positive  duty,  arjd  pocketting  the  property  of  the  careless  and  un- 
fortunate for  whom  the  legislature  thought  they  had  benignly  provided  by 
directing  public  notice  to  be  given  in  the  state  paper,  and  one  other  once  a 
year  where  their  ashes  might  be  found. 

It  is  no  doubt  known  to  you,  sir,  that  the  collector  of  this  port  is  b}  law 
required  to  give  notice  in  the  public  prints  every  nine  months,  what  articles 


100 

57cmain  in  the  public  stores  unclaimed,  giving  head  marks,  <fec.  which,  if 
not  claimed  within  the  period  fixed  by  law,  are  sold  at  public  auction,  and 
the  proceeds  no  doubt  are  deposited  in  the  treasury.  The  same  duty  is 
enjoined  on  us  inspectors  every  twelve  months.  Now,  suppose  Mr.  Thomp- 
son should  merely  withhold  his  notices,  and  could  make  it  appear  that  the 
property  was  untouched  in  the  public  stores,  would  he  go  unpunished  ?  But 
should  it  be  found  he  had  from  time  to  time  been  selling  them  (in  whole  or 
in  part)  at  private  instead  of  public  sale,  and  pocketting  the  proceeds  or 
giving  the  articles  or  the  proceeds  up  to  friends  or  dependents,  would  he  be 
allowed  to  retain  his  office  ?  Or,  if  he  was  charged  verbally  or  in  writing 
(as  I  have  done  inspectors  specifically  in  the  Albany  Argus  of  September, 
1826,  in  letter  of  6th  of  March,  1827,  to  Governor  Clinton,  and  in  circular 
of  19th  March  last)  with  "  Constructive,  Legal,  or  Moral  fraud,"  and  he  to 
shrink  from  an  inquiry,  would  he  be  allowed  to  hold  his  office  a  moment 
afterwards,  particularly  when  the  charges  were  specific  and  in  his  power  in- 
instantly  to  disprove  if  untrue  ?  Or,  would  Messrs.  M'Michael,  Douglass, 
Shankland,  and  others,  in  the  forwarding  line  be  justified  (in  private  life)  to 
pocket  the  proceeds  of  "  unclaimed"  articles,  without  first  giving  public 
notice  to  the  owners.  It  appears  to  mc,  that  the  conduct  of  inspectors  is 
inexcusable  in  deliberately  (for  years)  even  depriving  the  owners  of  the  use 
of  their  property. 

The  "  unclaimed"  ashes,  strictly  speaking,  are  those  for  which  bills  or 
receipts  have  been  issued,  and  by  casualties  have  been  lost  or  mislaid,  and 
also  when  ashes  have  been  sent  to  an  office  and  no  receipts  have  been 
issued.  '  Messrs.  Hart,  Thomas  &  Card,  and  Nicholas  Devereaux  &.  Co. 
will  understand  what  I  mean  by  "  no  receipts  have  been  issued." 

A  practice  of  making  unclaimed  ashes,  with  which  you  cannot  be 
acquainted,  has  existed  to  my  certain  knowledge  as  a  merchant  and 
inspector  for  twenty  years  ;  in  which  an  inspector's  conscience  was  the 
only  rule,  (some  fixing  on  a  certain  number  of  lbs.,  and  others  on  a  certain 
number  of  hundreds,)  acted  at  discretion  until  I  checked  the  practice  on 
the  4th,  7th,  and  8th  March  1825,  and  subsequently.     To  explain: 

Suppose  on  7th  January  1825  I  inspect,  say  sixty  casks  potashes,  from 
which  I  take  12  cwt.  of  ashes  unfit  for  inspection,  (alias  scrapings  and 
crustings,)  which  I  omit  to  enter  on  the  "  copy  of  the  bill  from  which 
they  were  taken."  The  owner  having  confidence  in  my  integrity,  sup- 
poses T  have  accounted  for  all  the  ashes  I  received,  and  being  hoodwinked, 
is  perfectly  satisfied.  To  all  intents  and  purposes,  these  scrapings  are 
emphatically  unclaimed  ashes  as  long  as  I  do  not  account  for  them  to  the 
owner,  and  should  be  reported  as  such  to  an  auctioneer  after  12  months 
detention  from  the  absentee. 

It  is  fairly  to  be  presumed  that  if  I  take  such  an  undue  advantage  of  one 
credulous  confiding  owner  when  present,  that  I  have  frequently  of  absentees, 
particularly  when  I  can  cover  all  mal  practices  (on  1st  Jan.  next,)  by  the 
forfeiture  of  $250  under  the  186th  sccliou,  merely  by  neglecting  to  report 
under  the  i71st,  174th,  175th,  or  176th  sections,  and  perhaps  pocket  thou- 
sands of  other  people's  property  by  the  evasion  or  finesse,  and  start  anew 
on  a  fresh  career,  the  legislature  having  legalized  the  trade. 

It  was  to  cut  up  "  root  and  branch,"  those  and  other  mal  practices 
c(iually  illegal  and  immoral,  that  I  got  Mr.  McCall  to  introduce  for  me 
sections,  174th,  170th,  and  176th,  into  the  "general  provisions,"  to  protect 
absentees,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  (and  myself,  should  I  again  become  a 
country  merchant,  or  mercantile  man  elsewhere,)  but  they  are  rendered  a 
dead  letter  by  the  177th  section,  which  places  sellers  and  purchasers  as 
l)efure,  at  the  mercy  of  us  inspectors,  deputies,  clerks,  foremen,  cooper, 
iSLc.  (alias,  our  "  confidential  gang,")  who  are  admitted  "  behind  the  cur- 
tain." 

No  person  but  an  inspector  can  form  any  correct  idea  how  quickly  sera- 


101 

pin^  accumulate.  1  was  struck  with  surprise,  on  finding  that  out  of  6762 
xcasks  of  potashes  I  had  taken,  (and  accounted  for  instantly  to  my  patrons 
on  the  copies  of  the  bills  from  which  they  were  taken,)  102479  lb.  equal 
to  3  per  cent,  or  15  1-6  lb.  per  cask,  the  value  of  which,  at  3^  cents  is 
^3586  66,  one  half  of  which  I  could  have  withheld  safely,  as  the  owners 
&:c.  were  displeased  at  receiving  so  much.  If  I  •  had  been  called  upon 
before  I  had  ascertained  the  ag^j^reg-ate  of  scrapings  so  closely,  I  would 
have  estimated  the  quantity  of  scrapings  accounted  for  at  one  half.  My 
object  in  introducing  the  174th,  175th,  and  176th  sections,  was  to  compel 
all  the  inspectors  throughout  the  state  to  account  for  any  scrapings  (as  with 
good  ashes.)  which  by  accident  or  design  might  have  been  omitted  (on 
their  copies)  as  "  unclaimed  ashes,"  so  as  to  take  away  all  the  ''  tempta- 
tion" to  wrong  the  country  owner,  manufacturer,  &c.  and  I  feel  indig- 
nant to  find  my  views  frustrated  by  the  artful  introduction  of  the  177th 
section,  introduced  in  terms  to  kill  my  three  sections;  but  I  must  find 
"ways  and  means"  to  foil  my  opponents  with  their  own  weapons  by  having 
the  penalty  increased  from  250  to  2500  or  3000  dollars,  or  changed  to 
forfeiture  of  office,  which  public  good,  private  interest,  and  pride  of 
character  will  induce  me  to  attempt  from  a  circumstance  which  has 
accidentally  come  to  my  knowledge.  My  motto  is,  "  do  your  duty,"  and 
leave  consequences  to  "  Providence."  So  far  I  have  suffered  in  purse, 
buttiotin  conscience,  which  is  a  "  setoff"  against  the  other  I  experimen- 
tally find  ;  and  it  says  to  me,  'Persevere  ;  you  have  to  the  astonishment  of 
both  friends  and  enemies  (unaided  and  unsupported  by  money  or  friends,) 
actually  compelled  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  governor,  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Call,  from  a  sense  of  duty,  to  move ;  and  now  with  facts  (which  are  "  stub- 
born things,")  at  command,  you  may  constrain  the  comptroller  and  the 
legislature  also  to  move,  as  the  public  good  actually  requires  it,  if  not  to 
remedy  what  is  past,  at  least  to  protect  the  absentee  for  the  time  to  come.' 

It  appears  that  a  combination  of  extraordinary  events  places  me  in  a 
situation  just  now  to  do  public  good,  having  the  documents  at  command  to 
prove  the  substantial  truths  of  any  allegations  I  have  or  may  make,  and 
being  a  mere  *'  matter  of  fact  man,''  I  say,  deny  them,  and  J  will  forthwith 
exhibit  my  proofs.  I  mention  this,  as  something  may  appear  from  me  other 
than  pot  and  pearlash  matters,  (in  case  I  deem  it  fit  and  proper  to  act ;)  if 
so,  you  may  be  morally  certain  I  can  prove  any  allegations  I  may  make, 
by  a  reference  to  documentary  evidence,  as  I  now  say  to  inspectors,  "show 
me  your  books  and  papers,  (you  shall  have  mine,)  and  your  condemna- 
tion is  certain."  One,  only  one  deviation  from  official  duty,  (as  I  have  told 
them  and  their  patrons  under  my  hand,)  shall  be  fatal  to  my  reputation  ;  to 
enable  me  to  say  which,  I  have  given  up  all  "  contingent  remainders" 
accruing  from  unclaimed  property,  whether  fit  or  unfit  for  inspection,  con- 
sequently I  am  poor. 

In  the  course  of  conversation,  it  was  remarked  substantially,  "  Do  not 
mention  the  names  of  inspectors  (of  "  provisions,  produce,  and  merchan- 
dise") other  than  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  for  the  list  of  your  enemies  is  alrea- 
dy too  great  without  adding  the  other  inspectors  and  their  friends  to  the 
number;  don't  you  see  that  sections  174  and  176  apply  to  every  inspec- 
tor in  the  state,  (and  the  175th  section  specially  to  pot  and  pearl  ashes 
inspectors)  consequently  the  177th  section  is  intended  to  excuse  every  in- 
spector who  may  liave  "  qualms  of  conscience"  as  to  making  any  report 
or  affidavit  required  by  these  sections,  and  to  avoid  the  forfeiture  for  "  neg- 
lect" of  $250,  by  which  evasions  all  accidental  or  wilful  blunders  made  in 
the  course  of  the  year,  (in  ashes,  beef,  pork,  flour,  fish,  oil,  flax-seed,  &c.) 
by  either  inspector,  clerk,  foreman,  cooper,  &c.  &.c.  can  be  covered  effec- 
tually ?" 

The  frauds  practised  upon  me  in  inspection  offices  of  ashes  and  provi- 
sions, whilst  a  merchant  in  Albany,  previously  to  1811,  instantly  occurred 
to  my  mind,  and  I  asked  mentally  this  question.  "  Suppose  you  become 
again  a  purchaser  of  these  articles,  are  you  not  as  much  at  the  mercy  of 

14 


102 

inspe  ctors  and  their  men,  (as  the  law  now  stands)  or  more  than  formerly  ^ 
Certainly  ;  and  as  ''  providence"  has  placed  you  officially  in  a  situation  to 
do  service  to  the  people  of  this  state  that  will  be  remembered  after  your 
death,  make  it  fairly  known  to  the  "constituted  authorities,"  and  if  they 
will  not  then  act  in  behalf  of  their  constituents,  the  fault  is  theirs  and  not 
yours." 

The  gentleman  who  is  said  to  have  introduced  the  177th  section,  could 
not  have  had  the  most  distant  idea  of  its  mischievous  and  dangerous  ten- 
dencies, as  I  repeat  it  leads  directly  to  carelessness,  dishonesty,  and  perju- 
ry, as  I  have  already  shown. 

To  give  a  public  officer  the  power  to  commute  with  money  for  a  dispen- 
sation from  all-important  duties,  is  "  passing  strange."  The  section  ought 
not  to  be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  statute  book  unaltered  a  moment,  as  it 
is  a  "  bad  precedent,''  particularly  as  all  inspectors  (myself  excepted)  say 
they  are  not  under  oath,  the  law  of  1822  having  expired,  and  none  being 
required  from  them  by  the  Revised  Statutes,  until  the  1st  of  January  next, 
when  they  can  give  my  positive  and  negative  oath  in  the  175th  section  the 
"  go  by"  on  paying  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  If  the  state  of  things 
which  I  have  mentioned  will  not  induce  you  and  the  legislature  to  act  on 
them  instantly,  I  shall  be  greatly  mistaken. 

I  shall  conclude  with  an  extract  from  mv  letter  to  Dox  &  Stoddard,  dat- 
ed 20th  July,  1826. 

"  I  look  upon  it  (under  the  actually  existing  state  of  things)  as  a  "  spe- 
cial Providence"  that  after  a  lapse  of  so  many  years  I  should  be  brought 
from  the  extremity  of  the  union,  St.  Mary's  in  Georgia,  to  this  place,  and 
to  find  myself  officially  in  a  situation  to  counteract  for  the  future  (I  regret  I 
cannot  the  past)  the  evil  consequences  of  a  practice  of  my  own  creating 
some  sixteen  or  seventeen  years  ago,  and  that  lean  now  explicitly  and  pe- 
remptorily say,  that  should  I  find  hereafter  quantities  of  ashes  from  in- 
spection offices,  here  or  elsewhere  (excepting  accidentally)  without  the 
designating  marks  required  by  law,  branding,  &c.  to  show  quality,  tare, 
&,c.  I  shall  deem  it  a  duty  (from  having  been  the  original  author  of 
the  practice)  to  notify  the  country  dupes,  &c.  and  to  give  special  and 
private  reasons  for  doing  so,  as  ho  inspector  can  plead  ignorance  on  this 
subject  who  has  read  the  clauses  alluded  to  in  the  la\v." 

For  the  residue  of  the  letter,  I  refer  to  a  copy  transmitted  to  Governor 
Clinton  on  29th  September,  1827,  and  other  communications,  in  which 
you  will  find  "1  have  kept  my  word"  with  inspectors  "here  and  elsewhere." 
Was  it  not  an  illegal  overture,  I  would  propose  to  secure  to  the  state  for 
an  assignment  of  their  "legal"  and  "equitable"  right  to  the  "unclaimed" 
ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  held  or  placed  directly  or  indirectly 
in  abeyance  twenty-five  to  thirty  thousand  dollars,  and  would  undertake 
to  settle  with  the  owners  whenever  they  produced  their  bills  or  receipts, 
taking  that  trouble  off  the  hands  of  your  sub-trustees. 

In  the  letter  to  his  excellency,  Governor  Clinton,  dated  6th  of  March, 
1827,  herewith  I  send  you  some  of  the  names  of  persons,  who  either  "know 
or  have  heard  from  those  who  do  know,''  that  my  allegations  that  Messrs. 
Snow,  C'oopcr,  Bogart,  liemsen,  Dumont,  and  other  inspectors  throughout 
the  state,  have  not  accounted  fi)r  "unclaimed"  ashes  (fit  or  unfit  for  inspec- 
tion) which  they  hold  or  have  placed  dir<'ctly  or  indirectly  in  abeyance, 
which  belong  to  you,  sir,  as  sole  trustee  of  the  fund,  fi)r  any  part  of  which 
lield  directly  or  indirectly  by  me  in  abeyance,  I  am  willing  instantly  to  ac- 
count (provided  other  inspectors  and  ex-inspectors  are  also  called  to  ac- 
count) but  all  your  other  sub-trustees  will  not  be  of  my  mind,  and  will  unite 
Iheir  influence  with  other  inspectors  and  ex-inspectors  to  prevent  the  177th 
section,  &;c.  from  being  amended,  but  specially  against  the  authorisingyou 
to  ask  \is  to  account  for  the  monies  which  we  have  "remembered  to  forget" 
(for  thirty  consecutive  years  past)  to  pay  over  (o  the  treasurer  for  account 
of  the  trustees  for  the  time  being. 

I  could  add  much  more,  but  I  will  refer  you  to  the  memorials  of  the  3d 


103 

April,  and  8th  instant  (to  the  senate)  and  the  report  under  the  185th  sec- 
tion of  16th  inst.  (to  the  assembly)  for  further  particulars,  and  I  put  the 
question  home  to  you,  sir,  officially,  and  as  a  citizen,  whether  if  the  alle- 
gations of  mine  are  true  or  false,  they  ought  not  to  be  investigated  by  the 
legislature;  for  if  true  (in  whole  or  in  part)  clearly  prompt  correctives 
should  be  applied  by  law.     With  great  respect, 

I  am,  Sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 
R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 

October,  23,  1828. — 1  have  just  taken  up  the  Daily  Advertiser,  (seven 
o'clock,  A.  M.)  and  find  my  memorial  was  on  Monday  submitted  by  the 
senate  to  a  select  committee  ;  as  a  matter  of  course  you  will  submit  this 
communication  to  them. 

To  be  candid  with  you,  my  virtue  (you  will  say  nonsense)  has  made  meso 
poor  *'  fighting  the  battles  of  the  public"  (with  the  inspectors  both  in  and 
out  of  office,  and  their  partizans)  that  in  fact,  without  borrowing,  1  have 
not  the  means  to  go  to  Albany  and  support  myself  there  whilst  the  matter 
is  pending. 

If  I  was  with  the  committee  for  half  an  hour,  personally,  I  could  point  to 
important  amendments  (which  I  have  not  mentioned)  which  would  enable 
them  to  report,  and  that  instantly  ;  and  by  a  mere  appeal  to  their  under- 
standing, and  which  none  but  a  practical  man  can  be  awai-e  of. 

The  committee  may  amend  the  law,  yet  I  will  find  "  ways  and  means" 
to  give  it  the  "  go  by''  on  the  "  lee  side;"  but  1  do  not  choose  to  commit  it 
to  paper.  If  they  wish  to  know,  they  must  send  for  me,  because  there 
ought  to  be  no  "  undue  influence"  made  use  of  to  obtain  or  prevent  amend- 
ments ;  inspectors'  interests,  (pro  or  con)  ought  to  be  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  All  that  should  be  asked  is,  will  this  or  that  amendment  be  for 
the  public  good,  or  otherwise  ? 

Note  to  p.  96.  Not  a  word  said  about  "  scrapings''  or  "  crustings" — 
averaging  three  per  cent,  or  fifteen  l-6th  per  cask  given  away  at  once  ; 
and  to  "  cap  the  climax,"  "  All  claims  of  the  inspector  or  otherwise"  to  be 
deducted  from  the  proceeds,  which  left  to  pay  into  the  treasury  nothing. 


MEMORANDUM. 

The  following  letter  to  governor  Clinton  is  the  one  submitted  to  Mr. 
Snow  and  others,  (between  7th  and  10th  March  1825,)  the  "•  imcen- 
does^''  in  which  were  perfectly  understood  by  every  one  in  and  out  of  Mr. 
S.'s  office,  who  had  Imd  a  "  finger''  in  the  '•'■  picking  and  scraping'''^  dishes, 
although  the  allusions  were  "  Delphic'''  to  the  Governor  and  the  honorable 
C.  D.  Colden.  The  effect  produced  by  the  letter  was  identifying  the  in- 
terests of  inspectors  and  others  who  unitedly  found  "  ways  and  means"  to 
defeat  all  my  attempts  to  amend  the  inspection  law,  until  the  letter  from 
Messrs.  De  Rham  and  Moore's  Antwerp  correspondent  appeared  in  the 
Morning  Courier  of  20th  July,  1827,  to  which  paper  and  the  succeeding 
numbers  I  refer  for  much  important  matter,  particularly  from  the  pen  of 
John  J.  Mumford,  Esq.  one  of  the  editors. 

To  his  Excellency  Governor  Clinton. 

New-York,  4th  March,  1825. 
Sir, 

In  the  course  of  the  last  season  I  was  unpleasantly  situated  in  find- 
ing that  my  construction  of  the  duties  enjoined  on  inspectors  of  ashes  by 


104 

the  3d  &  5th  sections  of  the  lavr  passed  3th  April,  182^,  was  in  direct  opposi^' 
tion  to  that  of  the  other  inspectors,  and  further,  that  there  was  a  differcoce 
of  opinion  as  to  the  quahty  of  fine  ashes,  (for  which  no  provision  is  made  by 
law,)  one  of  the  inspectors  deeming  them  of  an  inferior,  another  of  a  su- 
perior grade. 

As  coUision  in  opinion  and  practice  must  continue  for  the  future  without 
legislative  interference,  I  will  lake  the  liberty  of  stating  the  subjects  of  dif- 
ference, presuming  that  every  person  will  agree  in  opinion  that  all  the  du- 
ties of  inspectors  relating  to  such  an  important  staple  article  as  ashes, 
should  be  clearly  and  explicitly  defined,  so  that  as  little  latitude  as  possible 
should  be  left  to  their  discretion  in  order  to  ensure  uniformity  in  practice, 
otherwise  the  interests  both  of  seller  and  buyer  will  be  (more  or  less,)  af- 
fected  by  their  acts. 

Asa  junior  inspector,  I  have  a  personal  interest  in  wishing  that  all 
duties  may  be  so  fully  and  explicitly  defined  by  law,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  or 
uncertainty  on  my  mind  as  to  the  real  intention  of  the  legislature,  but  that 
I  may  be  able  to  act  understaudiagly  and  promptly  without  reference  to 
the  opinions  or  practices  of  my  coadjutors  in  office. 

With  these  preliminary  observations,  I  beg  leave  to  state  that  I  have 
understood  that  Mr.  Snow  considers  the  fine  ashes  as  not  superior  to  scrap- 
ings or  crustings  ;  whereas,  in  Mr.  Cooper's  opinion,  they  are,  (when  dry,) 
deemed  equal  to  any  in  the  cask,  and  both,  (according  to  Mr.  Cooper's 
representation,)  have  acted  in  conformity  to  their  several  opinions,  Mr. 
Snow  by  putting  the  fine  ashes  among  the  crustings,  Mr.  Cooper  among 
the  superior  ashes. 

I  was  for  a  time  under  the  impression  that  Major  Cooper's  was  the  most 
correct,  but  I  now  think  differently  in  consequence  of  a  practice,  (which  has 
become  very  prevalent  of  late,)  of  dusting  (more  or  less)  lime  on  the  ashes 
to  keep  them  from  crusting,  which  renders  the  fine  ashes  impure,  and  I  now 
think  Mr.  Snow's  the  safest  and  best  practice,  and  will  be  most  for  the 
credit  of  the  article  abroad.  I  would  therefore  respectfully  suggest,  that 
it  be  hereafter  enjoined  on  all  inspectors  by  law,  to  consider  the  fine 
ashes  as  scrapings  and  act  accordingly. 

The  third  section  of  the  law  of  5th  April,  1022,  directs  the  mode,  &c.  of 
ascertaining  the  qualities,  tare,  &c.  of  ashes,  after  which  follows  a  clause 
to  the  following  purport:  "  In  which  invoice  or  weigh  note  he  shall  distin- 
guish the  pot  and  pearl  ashes  in  the  manner  herein  before  directed,  and  al- 
so make  a  copy  of  the  same,  in  which  he  shall  specify  the  original  private 
marks  and  numbers  together  with  the  scrapings  and  crustings  that  shall 
have  been  taken  from  the  pot  ash,  contained  in  the  said  invoice,  and  he 
shall  also  enter  the  same  in  a  book  by  him,  kept  for  that  purpose." 

Was  it  not  that  I  have  the  information  personally  from  Major  Cooper, 
(and  know  the  fact  from  his  books,  &c.)  that  he  has  deemed  the  clause  a 
dead  letter,  (with  the  exception  of  what  relates  to  the  original  marks  and 
numbers,)  I  could  not  have  credited  it,  but  such  is  the  fact  as  to  the  crust- 
ings and  the  entry  in  a  book. 

By  the  6th  section  of  the  law  the  inspectors  are  directed  to  collect  the 
scrapings  or  crustings,  (made  under  the  third  section,)  to  furnish  a  weigh 
note,  &c.  after  which  follows  a  clause,  "  and  also  make  a  copy  of  the  same 
on  the  copy  of  the  invoice  or  weigh  note  from  which  it  was  taken,"  which 
clause  I  have  also  understood  from  Major  Cooper  has  been  deemed  a  dead 
letter  by  him  and  others. 

In  my  opinion  the  third  and  fifth  clauses  contain  salutary  provisions,  and 
as  far  as  practicable  I  have  complied  with  them.  Should  it  however  be 
thought  by  the  legislature  that  they  are  non-essential,  I  would  suggest  the 
propriety  of  having  them  repealed  forthwith,  otherwise  to  enforce  their  ex- 
ecution, and  for  that  purpose,  that  a  clause  be  added  to  a  bill  directing  a 
strict  and  punctual  compliance  with  all  the  provisions  in  the  3d  section, 
but  expressly  that,  "  on  the  copy  of  the  weigh  note  to  be  rendered  to  the 


105 

owner  or  owners,  or  tbeir  agents,  the  quantity  of  crusting  (scrapings  and 
fine  ashes)  taken  'out,  should]  be  specifically  stated  opposite  to  each  and 
every  cask,  in  which  case  the  clause  in  the  3d  section  would  be  surplusage, 
and  ought  to  be  repealed.  It  having  been  found  difficult  literally  to  com- 
ply with  the  provisions  on  account  of  the  many  subdivisions  of  bills  from 
which  the  refuse  ashes  were  taken,  and  for  the  additional  reason  that  the 
bill  will  be  only  issued  (under  the  5th  section,)  for  the  scrapings  which  the 
inspector  finds  to  have  been  actually  made  by  his  detailed  account. 

As  the  amendments  proposed  will  in  fact  be  merely  declaratory  of  the 
construction  of  the  legislature,  on  the  clauses,  no  objection  can  well  be 
made  to  them,  and  they  will  further  appear  to  be  necessary  as  other  in- 
spectors may  be  appointed  who  also  may  have  contrary  opinions  and  prac- 
tices on  the  same  subject. 

I  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  non-compliance  with  the  3d  and  5tU 
clauses,  (head  marks  and  numbers  excepted,)  will  not  be  denied ;  but  if  so, 
reference  can  be  had  to  the  copies  of  bills  issued  since  the  passing  of  the 
act  in  the  hands  of  the  dealers  in  ashes  in  Albany,  Sic, 

I  would  further  respectfully  suggest,  that  as  the  currency  of  the  states 
is  made  decimal,  whether  it  would  not  be  advisable  to  regulate  the  weight 
of  ashes  by  the  same  standard,  which  would  be  vastly  convenient  in  all  cal- 
culations on  the  articles,  particularly  as  the  practice  is  beginning  to  pre- 
vail (in  other  states,)  to  sell  and  buy  by  the  neat,  instead  of  the  gross 
weight,  in  addition  to  which  its  adoption  would  prevent  many  a  mistake,  as 
the  latter  mode  of  weighing  is  more  subject  to  error  than  the  former. 

The  necessity  of  some  modifications  of  the  existing  law,  to  me  is  appa- 
rent, (from  what  has  been  stated,)  but  should  the  legislature  think  otherwise, 
I  will  cheerfully  acquiesce,  as  Major  Cooper's  construction  and  practice  is 
vastly  more  easy  and  convenient  in  every  point  of  view  than  under  my 
construction  of  the  act. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  sir, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY. 


MEMORANDUM. 

As  the  Journals  are  accessible  to  so  few,  for  the  public  convenience,  I 
add  the  following  Reports  (taken  from  the  copies  printed  by  order  of  the 
Assembly,  20th  October  and  4th  November,  1828,)  which  may  be  found 
in  the  Journals  of  the  Assembly,  Extra  Session,  1828,  pages  54  to  63  in- 
clusive, and  in  the  Journals  of  Senate,  same  session,  page  65. 

(No.  1.) 

IN  ASSEMBLY, 

October  20,  1828. 
Report  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  an  Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes  for  the 
City  of  J\^ew-York. 

New- York,  October  16,   1828. 
Sir, 

I  have  the  honor  of  enclosing  you  my  report,  as  an  inspector  of  po4 
and  pearl  ashes,  under  the  185th  section  of  the  revised  law,  chapter  17th  j 
which  please  to  submit  to  the  house  over  which  you  preside. 
I  am,  very  respectfully, 

Sii",  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Asbe&, 
The  Hon.  Erastus  Root, 

Speaker  of  the  Assembly,  Albany. 


106 

'  REPORT  of  Robert  R.  Henry,  one  of  the  Inspectors  of  Pot  and  Pear! 

Ashes  for  the  City  of  New-York,  under  the  185th  section  of  the  Revised 

Statute,  chapter  17th,  regulating  the  inspection  of  provisions,  produce 

and  merchandise. 
Respectfully  shetveth  : 

That  on  the  24th  March  last,  he  received  officially  from  the  clerk  of 
this  city,  the  statute  alluded  to,  (to  go  into  operation  on  the  1st  May  en- 
suing ;)  which  he  found,  on  examination,  to  contain  enactments  most 
prejudicial  to  the  country  merchant,  manufacturer,  (and  absentees  gener- 
ally,) if  acted  on  agreeably  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  law,  particularly 
the  63d  section  ;  which  induced  me  respectfully  to  point  them  out  in  a 
memorial  or  report  dated  3d  April  last,  presented  in  Senate  on  the  ensuing 
day,  but  wliich  was  not  acted  on,  the  session  being  so  near  a  close.  For 
particulars,  I  refer  to  the  report  alluded  to. 

When  I  found  the  legislature  had  adjourned,  ordering  an  extra  session 
in  September,  I  made  up  my  mind  not  to  act  under  the  revised  law  until 
then  ;  as  it  was  in  so  many  respects  defective,  particularly  as  it  granted,  in 
the  177th  section,  a  privilege  completely  destructive  in  fact  to  the  entire 
inspecton  system  ;  as  it  had  a  direct  tendency  to  make  inspectors  careless, 
if  not  dishonest,  (and  eventually  to  lead  to  perjury  ;)  as  all  blunders, 
whether  accidental  or  wilful,  might  be  covered  on  the  payment  or  for- 
feiture of  250  dollars,  or  in  certain  cases  avoiding  the  forfeiture  by  finesse  : 
by  which  evasions,  six  sections  could  be  rendered  a  dead  letter  ;  and  if  so, 
indirectly  all  the  sections  in  the  law. 

To  explain  my  meaning,  I  have  on  hand  at  the  present  moment,  say 
dollars  worth  of  unclaimed  ashes,  which  say  I  determine  not  to  report 
to  any  auctioneer.  Of  course,  sections  171,  172,  173,  174,  and  the  all- 
important  section  175,  are  rendered  nullities,  by  my  wilful  neglect  of 
official  and  positive  duty.  Now,  how  may  the  176th  section  in  fact  also 
be  rendered  so  ;  complying  with  the  letter,  but  violating  the  spirit  of  the 
law  ?  The  legislature  have  left  the  opening,  as  they  do  not  say  the  person 
claiming  as  owner  must  show  legal  title  by  the  production  of  the  original 
bills  or  receipts,  (taking  it  for  granted  that  would  be  done:)  consequently, 
merely  by  a  "convenient  friend''  claiming,  by  saying  in  the  presence  of 
witnesses,  (who  may  suppose  it  a  bona  fide  transaction,)  that  he  had  lost  or 
mislaid  his  bills,  and  asking  me  to  issue  duplicates,  on  a  satisfactory  guar- 
antee to  keep  me  harmless  in  case  the  original  bills  should  ever  appear : 
to  which  I  consent,  remarking,  that  had  he  not  claimed,  I  would  have 
been  constrained  to  report  them  to  an  auctioneer  as  unclaimed  ashes, 
under  the  171st  section  of  the  revised  law,  (or  the  17th  section  of  act  5th, 
18£2  ;)  thus  enabling  me  to  say,  they  have  been  claimed — giving  the  spirit 
both  of  the  171st  and  176th  sections  the  go  by. 

Or  :  If  I  never  have  reported  any  unclaimed  ashes  fit  or  unfit  for  in- 
spection, under  the  17lh  section  of  the  act  of  5th  April,  1822,  (or  the  act 
of  1813  ;)  consequently  I  should  have  "  qualms  of  conscience"  as  to  filing 
any  report  or  affidavit  required  by  either  the  174th,  175th  or  176th  sec- 
tions. But  happily  the  legislature  relieve  me  from  the  necessity  of  doing 
either,  by  allowing  me  to  commute  with  money  for  all  acts  of  omission  or 
commission,  (under  the  laws  of  1822,  &c.)  on  my  forfeiting  for  "neglect" 
of  all-important  duties,  the  petty  sum  of  250  dollars.  Consequently,  I 
pocket  certain  sums,  (how  much  cannot  be  ascertained,  because  I  am  re- 
leased from  making  any  disclosures,)  perhaps  thousands  (if  I  have  been 
long  in  business)  of  the  proceeds  of  unclaimed  ashes,  which  have  for 
years  and  years  been  accumulating  in  my  hands,  but  which  ought  to  have 
been  paid  into  the  treasury,  for  account  of  the  compiroller,  as  sole  trustee 
of  the  fund. 

I  ask  respectfully,  was  there  ever  a  more  unwise  and  improvident  sec- 
lion  passed  ?  Giving  an  inspector  in  fact  a  carte  blanche  to  act  as  he 
thinks  fit  and  proper,  which  I  can  do  at  the  present  moment,  provided 
what  is  asserted   by  all  inspectors  (but  myself)  is  true,  that  the  law  of 


107 

1822  having  expired,  (and  having  taken  no  oath  under  the  revised  law,) 
we  are  under  no  responsibility  for  acts  done  or  suiTered  to  be  done  under 
that  act,  or  the  revised  law.  Consequently  we  have  all,  since  the  Ist 
May  last,  been  acting-  at  discretion  ;  which  principle,  if  sound,  enables  U9 
to  withhold  the  returns  required  by  law,  of  ashes  both  fit  and.  unfit  for  in- 
spection, to  auctioneers,  comptroller,  &c.  Consequently  1  determined  not 
to  act  under  the  law,  until  I  made  known  its  defects  to  the  legislature.  I 
dismissed  all  clerks,  foreman,  &c.  on  the  1st  May  last,  as  a  matter  of 
course ;  as  I  could  not  act  under  it  with  satisfaction  to  myself  or  others, 
until  they  were  corrected.  I  now  ask  with  deference,  whether  instead  of 
250  dollars,  at  least  2500  dollars  should  not  be  the  penalty  under  the 
177th  section,  for  neglecting  (wilfully)  to  file  any  affidavit  or  report  re- 
quired by  law,  to  either  auctioneer,  comptroller,  legislature  or  owner;  or 
forfeiture  of  office  be  substituted  in  lieu  of  the  pecuniary  penalty?  For 
the  particular  defects  in  the  several  sections  of  the  revised  law,  refer  to 
my  memorials,  dated  3d  April  and  8th  instant,  on  file,  no  doubt,  with  the 
clerk  of  the  senate. 

I  would  further  respectfully  state,  that  the  174th,  175th  and  176th 
sections,  will  not  be  found  in  the  "  General  provisions''  reported  by  the 
revisers,  but  were  introduced  by  or  through  the  Hon.  James  M'Call,  at 
my  special  instance  and  request ;  and  are  predicated  entirely  on  the  sug- 
gestions made  in  my  letter  to  him,  dated  16th  October,  1827.  Bat  in  con- 
sequence of  the  call  on  inspectors  in  the  174th  section  being  for  duplicates, 
and  Mr.  M'Call  assuming  for  his  limitation  the  "  preceding  year,"  instead 
of  mine,  say  "  SO  consecutive  years  ;''  no  inspector  in  the  state,  but  myself, 
(with  perhaps  one  exception,)  will  report  to  the  comptroller  under  the 
174th  section.  Consequently,  defaulters  will  be  reported  by  him  to  the 
district  attornies,  with  directions  to  prosecute  for  the  penalties  under  the 
177th  section.  And  if  they  do,  (before  the  section  is  amended,)  the  state 
in  every  case  will  be  defeated,  with  costs;  as  Messrs.  Snow,  Eemsen, 
Dumont  and  others,  will  plead  in  bar  of  recovery,  that  they  could  not 
possibly  transmit  duplicates  to  the  comptroller,  never  having  furnished  any 
auctioneer  with  originals  under  the  act  of  1822  ;  and  thus,  by  direct 
evasion  of  positive  duty,  defeat  the  intention  of  the  legislature  outright,  by 
taking  advantage  of  a  mistake  in  the  section. 

I  would  respectfully  ask  whether  it  is  politic,  or  just  and  equitable  as  to 
owners  of  unclaimed  ashes,  and  the  state,  to  let  all  inspectors  who  are  de- 
faulters, profit  by  their  own  laches  or  omissions  of  duties  plainly  and  posi- 
tively required  from  them  every  year,  by  the  17th  section  of  the  act  5th 
April,  1822,  and  the  171st  section  of  the  revised  law  ;  allowing  them  in- 
directly (by  the  177th  section)  to  pocket  the  proceeds  of  unclaimed  ashes, 
both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  held  or  placed  directly  or  indirectly  in 
abeyance,  to  the  loss  and  injury  of  the  owners  and  people  of  this  state  ; 
depriving  both,  by  illegal  concealment,  of  the  use  of  the  funds  for  years, 
and  ultimately  to  a  total  loss,  without  they  are  forthwith  legally  called  to 
account  by  and  with  the  comptroller,  the  sole  trustee  of  the  fund,  whose 
trust  inspectors  have  usurped  for  years,  (with  one  exception;)  as  it  will 
not  be  denied  by  any  inspector  on  oath,  that  there  are  unclaimed  ashes, 
both  fit  aud  unfit  for  inspection,  that  have  not  been  "  duly  accounted  for" 
as  the  "  law  directs." 

It  will  be  perceived  on  examination  of  the  baneful  177th  section,  that  it 
does  not  say  the  inspector  shall  be  subjected  to  the  forfeiture,  who  shall 
"  neglect"  to  make  any  or  every  report  or  affidavit  required  from  him  in 
the  "  General  provisions;"  but  it  selects  out  of  the  three  sections  (intro- 
duced for  me  by  Mr.  M'Call,)  specially.  It  might  as  well  have  been  ex- 
pressed in  terms,  (for  so  it  is  understood  by  us  inspectors,)  that  any  inspector 
who  might  have  reason  to  wish  to  avoid  making  any  reports  or  affidavits 
mentioned  in  "the  three  preceding  sections,"  (particularly  the  oath  spe- 
cially prescribed  for  inspectors  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  by  the  1 75th  section,) 
shall  be  excused  on  paying  250  dollars.     It  never  could  have  been  intended 


108 

by  the  legislature  to  render  the  three  most  important  sections  in  the  in- 
spection law,  (recommended  by  me  expressly  to  Mr.  M'Call,  to  guard  the 
rights  of  absentees,)  in  fact  nullities,  by  permitting  any  of  us  who  had  not 
*'  duly  accounted,"  Sic.  as  the  "  law  directs,"  to  compound  for  omissions  of 
duty  by  the  payment  of  a  sum  of  money  ;  a  most  dangerous  privilege,  by 
the  by,  as  it  is  now  a  matter  of  mere  calculation  in  fact  with  us  inspectors, 
whether  compliance  or  non-compliance  with  the  171st,  174th,  175th  and 
176th  sections,  is  most  advantageous.  Although  I  reported  unclaimed 
ashes  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  up  till  21st  January  1828,  (see  copy  of  auc- 
tioneer's notice  herewith,)  yet  it,  on  calculation,  is  evidently  for  my  advan- 
tage to  withhold  any  further  reports  to  auctioneers,  (and  of  course  to  the 
comptroller,)  and  pay  the  forfeitures  ;  which  I  would  do  if  I  did  not  think 
it  would  be  a  constructive  or  moral  fraud,  although  on  the  payment  or 
forfeiture  of  the  250  dollars  it  is  not  legally  so,  as  the  permission  to  practise 
the  evasion  is  granted  to  me  almost  in  terms  by  the  section.  To  shew 
most  conclusively  the  impropriety  of  allowing  me  and  others  the  option  to 
report  or  not,  I  now  admit  that  I  hold  at  the  present  moment  a  very  con- 
siderable quantity  of  unclaimed  ashes,  directly  in  abeyance  ;  and  I  further 
admit  that  I  hold  the  proceeds  of  unclaimed  ashes  indirectly  in  abeyance, 
being  money  accruing  from  sales  of  such  ashes,  made  by  an  inspector  or 
his  agent,  and  paid  to  me  on  account.  Consequently  I  am  a  sub-trustee, 
and  also  a  sub-trustee  to  a  sub- trustee,  and  hold  directly  and  indirectly  in 
abeyance,  funds  wliich  belong  to  the  comptroller,  as  trustee  appointed  by 
the  laws  of  1813,  1822  and  1827;  shewing  the  necessity  of  instructing 
and  authorising  him  forthwith  to  call  on  me  and  others,  to  account  with 
him  for  the  funds  illegally  withheld  ;  which  I  have  suggested  in  my  memo- 
rial of  8th  instant,  as  the  most  summary  way  to  get  at  them  ;  because  if 
delayed  till  the  1st  January  next,  I  can  give  the  legislature  the  slip  by 
abdication,  or  pay  the  composition  money,  and  the  right  of  the  state  vests 
in  me. 

No  consideration  in  money,  however  great,  should,  in  my  opinion,  induce 
the  legislature  to  give  up  the  guarantee  which  I  have  obtained  for  the  pub- 
lic, through  Mr.  M'Call,  by  the  oath  in  section  175;  by  which  the  inspector 
is  made,  once  a  year,  to  swear  positively  that  he  had  made  returns  of  un- 
claimed ashes  to  some  auctioneer,  (mentioning his  name;)  also  that  he  had 
duly  accounted  for  all  other  ashes,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  as  the 
law  directs ;  and  negatively,  that  he  has  not,  by  himself,  or  any  person  in 
his  employ,  done  such  and  such  illegal  acts.  A  few  additional  disclaimers, 
which  I  have  pointed  out  in  my  memorial  or  report  of  the  8th  instant, 
added  to  this  oath,  and  the  absentee,  botli  at  home  and  abroad,  are  safe, 
without  the  inspector  will  plunge  deep  in  guilt.  There  is  a  peculiar  ne- 
cessity for  enforcing  this  section,  as  by  the  80th  section  the  inspector  has 
the  power  given  him  to  appoint  "  as  many  assistants  as  he  shall  deem  ne- 
cessary," who  mayor  may  not  be  trust-worthy  characters;  of  course, 
responsibility  is  in  fact  and  truth  divided,  andean,  if  necessary,  at  any 
time  be  shifted  on  persons  over  whom  the  appointing  power  have  no  direct 
control. 

The  certainty  that  we  inspectors  will  have  to  make  returns  under  t)ath, 
once  a  year,  would  compel  one  and  all  of  us  to  think  seriously,  and  that 
hourly  and  daily.  Consequently  we  could  no  longer  plead  as  an  excuse, 
*'  1  forgot,  or  my  clerk  forgot  to  enter  the  scrapings  [alias  the  commix- 
ture,) on  the  copies  of  the  bills  from  which  they  were  taken," &c.  &c.  I 
have  been  too  long  an  eye  witness  to  such  evasions  or  finesses,  and  per- 
sonally knew  the  excuse  given  of  having  a  bad  memory,  &c.  to  be  abso- 
lutely untrue ;  the  omission  to  make  reports  of  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for 
inspection,  being  wilful  and  designed. 

If  the  177th  section  is  allowed  to  remain  in  the  statute  book  as  it  now  is, 
an  inspector  need  not  care  whether  the  returns  made  by  him,  his  deputies 
or  clerks,  are  accurate  or  not  ;  as  he  knows  all  errors,  accidental  or  de- 
signed, can  be  covered  by  omitting  returns,  and  subjecting  himself  to  the 


109 

payment  df  250  dollars;  and  by  which  finesse,  he  gets  clear  of  Mr* 
M'Call's  (alias  Henry's)  oath  No.  175.  To  allow  a  public  officer  to  com- 
mute with  money  for  a  dispensation  for  any  positive  duty,  however  small,  is 
a  precedent,  in  my  opinion,  pregnant  with  evil  consequences;  because 
one  precedent,  in  public  or  private  life,  creates  another,  and  they  soon 
accumulate  and  become  law.  What  was  yesterday  fact,  to-day  becomes 
doctrine;  for  examples,  if  of  long-  standing,  are  supposed  to  justify  the 
most  illegal  and  dangerous  measures ;  and  when  they  do  not  exactly  suit, 
the  defect  is  supplied  by  analogy.  And  the  person  who  labours  to  check 
such  practices,  too  often  meets  with  enmity  and  ill  will  in  return,  for  even 
distinguished  zeal,  particularly  if  personal  benefit  is  involved  in  the  busi- 
ness. Some  of  the  evils  which  I  have  complained  of,  particularly  the 
withholding  returns  of  more  or  less  ashes  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection, 
have,  to  my  personal  knowledge,  been  creeping  into  inspection  offices  by 
silent  and  slow  degrees,  for  many  years  ;  but  not  growing  to  any  great  or 
open  degree  of  atrocity,  have  been  passed  over  in  silence.  I,  however, 
think  it  is  full  time  to  make  us  inspectors  account  for  every  ounce  of  ashes 
we  actually  receive  ;  and  if  by  any  oversight  or  omission,  the  country 
owner  is  to  lose  them,  that  we  be  compelled  to  report  the  ashes  as  unclaim- 
ed ashes  to  an  auctioneer,  that  the  people  of  this  state,  and  not  inspectors, 
should  have  the  benefit  from  any  laches  or  neglects  of  duty. 

My  coadjutors  and  their  friends,  both  in  and  out  of  the  offices,  blame 
me  excessively  for  the  rigid  rules  I  have  introduced  into  the  inspection  law, 
(through  the  Governor,  Mr.  M'Call,  and  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,)  and 
those  I  still  wish  to  have  introduced.  I,  however,  have  asked,  am  I  not 
equally  bound  by  them  as  long  as  1  remain  an  inspector?  If  I  was  asking 
for  any  personal  exemption  or  immunity,  the  case  would  be  altered ;  but  I  am 
not.  I,  however,  may  be  compelled  to  assume  my  old  occupation  as  a 
merchant  or  broker,  and  become  a  dealer  (as  I  was  formerly)  in  the  article 
of  ashes.x  Of  course,  I  wish  now,  by  enactments,  to  protect  the  absentee 
from  imposition,  and  myself  ultimately,  by  having  the  law  rendered  as  per- 
fect as  possible,  and  to  make  it  truly,  what  it  has  ironically  been  called, 
Henry's  law. 

In  the  exhibit  herewith,  I  give  copies  of  all  notices  which  have  appeared 
in  print,  relative  to  unclaimed  ashes,  from  1814  down  to  the  I9th  February 
1828,  when  the  last  appeared.  That  private  sales,  and  that  to  a  very 
large  amount,  have  been  made  in  the  intermediate  time,  through  the 
agency  of  brokers,  clerks,  foremen,  &;c.  (and  therefore  illegally,)  will  not 
be  denied  on  oath  by  inspectors ;  and  that  the  proceeds  are  not  in  the 
treasury,  the  books  will  shew.  Whether  inspectors  and  ex-inspectors  will 
be  allowed  to  retain  the  proceeds  of  ashes  not  reported  to  auctioneers,  is 
the  question  which  I  submit  to  the  wisdom  of  the  legislature  ;  and  if  per- 
mitted, I  can  then  legally  and  conscientiously  retain  what  I  have  in  pos- 
session. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  by 

R.  R.  HENRY, 
Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 

New- York,  October  16,  1828. 


From  the  J^ew-York  Gazette. 

EXTRA  NOTICE, 

The  undermentioned  ashes  having  laid  in  my  inspection  office  unclaimed 
for  more  than  twelve  months,  (all  charges  on  them  of  inspection,  storage, 
&c.  being  unpaid,)  and  the  supposed  owners  or  agents,  Messrs.  Keeler  and 
Rogers,  Willard  Walker  k,  Co.,  Ralph  Pratt  &  Co.,  and  Manning  &  Rich- 
mond, disclaiming  all  right  in  the  property,  I  do  give  this  extra  notice  to 
the  holders  of  the  original  bills,  that  if  all  charges  are  not  forthwith  paid, 

15 


110 

the  ashes  will  be  sold  at  auction,  agreeably  to  the  17th  section  of  the  "  Act 
concerniDg  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,"  passed  5th  April,  1822. 
(Signed)  R.  R.  HENRY, 

No.  7,  Washington-street. 
New- York,  July  10,  1826. 


R.  M.  Bailey, 

9  casks  pearl  ashes, 

inspected  9 

May,  1825. 

E.  &  E.  D.  N. 

2     do 

do 

do 

13 

do 

Do.  &do. 

23     do 

do 

do 

13 

do 

E.  B. 

11     do 

do 

do 

18 

do 

H.  M'Graw, 

45     do 

do 

do 

19 

do 

M'Graw  Sl  Dowd, 

53     do 

do 

do 

19 

do 

Do.  &  do. 

12     do 

do 

do 

21 

do 

R.  D.  Delay  &  Co. 

S     do 

do 

do 

21 

do 

A.  Babcock, 

31     do 

do 

do 

23 

do 

W.  &  Edgcomb, 

4     do 
193  casks. 

do 

do 

28 

April. 

[From  the  N.  Y.  Daily  Advertiser  of  Friday,  Sept.  22,  1826,  No.  2925.] 
FIRST  OFFICIAL  NOTICE. 

By  Martin  Hoffman  &  Sons,  12  o'clock,  at  No.  7  Washington  street, 
on  the  14th  November. 

NOTICE. 

The  undermentioned  ashes  having  laid  in  the  inspection  oflSce  of  Robert 
R.  Henry,  No.  7  Washington  street,  New- York,  for  more  than  12  months 
unclaimed  ;  notice  is  hereby  given,  in  compliance  with  tlie  positive  direc- 
tions contained  in  the  17th  section  of  "  An  act  concerning  the  inspection 
of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,"  passed  5th  April  1822,  that  unless  claimed  within 
six  weeks,  and  all  charges  on  them  paid,  the  ashes  will  be  sold  at  public 
auction,  at  No.  7  Washington  street,  on  the  14th  November  next,  and  the 
nelt  proceeds  will  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  this  state,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  owner  or  owners. 

HEAD  MARKS. 
Casks  Pearl  Ashes. 
W .  Edgcomb,  4         insp'd  29  April  1 825,  for  Manning  &  Richmond. 

M'Graw  &  Dowd,     53  do.    19  May      «      for  Ralph  Pratt  &  Co. 

H.  M'Graw,  45  do.    19  May      «      for  do.         do. 

R.  Tiffany  4  do.    13  Sept.     "     for  Capt.  B.  Whipple. 

106 

(Signed)  M.  HOFFMAN  &  SONS. 

The  same  notice  will  be  found  in  the  state  paper,  being  required  by  law. 

Note. — In  consequence  of  the  benign  intention  of  tlie  legislature,  in 
compelling  the  inspectors  imperatively  to  report  to  an  auctioneer,  by  not 
leaving  it  optional,  as  under  the  12th  section  of  the  act  of  25th  February 
1813,  (he  shall,  not  ma?/,)  report,  all  the  ashes  were  legally  claimed  from 
me,  by  the  actual  production  of  tlic  bills  or  receipts,  before  the  da}'  appoint- 
ed for  tlie  sale  as  above  :  and  of  course  none  could  be  legally  made,  as  all 
the  charges,  with  the  exception  of  the  advertising,  were  paid.  Those  I 
thought  it  advisable  not  to  insist  on,  it  being  a  novel  transaction,  being  in 
fact  the  only  notice  that  had  appeared  since  the  spring  of  1814;  from 
which  period,  all  the  inspectors,  with  the  exceptions  of  the  above,  had 
withheld  their  reports  from  auctioneers,  and  of  course  the  proceeds 
from  the  comptroller,  the  sales  having  been  made  through  private  agents, 
and  of  course  illegally  :  consequently  they  have  "  usurped  bis  trust,"  he 


Ill 

bein^  appointed  by  the  lai^s  of  1813  and  1822,  the  "  sole  trustee"  of  all 
the  funds  accruing-  from  sales  of  unclaimed  ashes,  whether  fit  or  unfit  for . 
inspection  ;  of  course  illeg-ally  depriving-  the  owners,  and  the  people  of  this 
state,  of  their  rig-hts  in  the  property,  by  wilfully  and  designedly  concealing 
from  them,  by  evasion  of  the  law,  where  it  was  deposited. 

I  was  strongly  tempted  not  to  publish  the  extra  notice,  nor  the  first  re- 
port to  the  auctioneers,  but  to  be  perfectly  silent,  as  others  were,  on  the 
subject ;  and  if  so,  had  any  of  the  bills  or  receipts,  from  casualties,  been  lost 
or  destroyed,  the  ashes  of  course  became  mine,  by  merely  getting  a  ''con- 
venient friend"  to  claim  or  demand  them  as  owner,  consequently  enabling 
me  to  say  I  had  no  ashes  which  had  not  been  "  claimed  or  demanded  ;''  which 
could  safely  have  been  done,  as  the  legislature,  in  all  their  acts,  have  most 
unwisely  "  taken  it  for  granted"  that  no  person  but  a  bona  Jide  owner 
would  claim;  consequently  have  omitted  to  say  "a  legal  title  must  be 
shown  by  the  exhibition  of  the  original  bills  or  receipts,"  which  left  the  door 
wide  open  by  finesse  and  management,  to  give  the  laws  of  1813  and  1822 
the  go-by  ;  rendering-  them,  as  to  unclaimed  ashes,  a  perfect  dead  letter  ;  as 
from  thesame  oversight,  will  be  the  sections  in  the  general  provisions  of  the 
revised  law,  from  171  to  176  inclusive;  particularly  as  the  177th  section, 
in  terms,  gives  the  inspector  the  option  to  report,  &,c.  or  not,  as  he  thinks 
proper,  on  paying  250  dollars  for  the  "  neglect,"  whichever  he  may  find,  on 
calculation,  most  for  his  advantage.  I,  however,  thought,  (the  inspection 
latvs  out  of  the  question,)  that  if  I  withheld  the  ashes  or  the  proceeds  of  ash- 
es, without  first  giving  the  owners  or  their  representatives  who  might  have 
lost  or  mislaid  vouchers,  public  notice  where  their  property  was  deposited, 
1  would  be  guilty  either  of^  constructive,  legal,  or  moral  fraud  ;  conse- 
quently, I  have  always  deemed  it  fit  and  proper  to  pursue  the  precise  course 
pointed  out  by  the  law ;  of  course  giving  up  the  chance  of  becoming  the 
owner  of  any  of  the  ashes  officially  in  my  possession. 


SECOND  EXTRA  NOTICE. 

[Published  in  the  New-York  Morning  Courier.] 

UNCLAIMED  ASHES. 

The  pot  and  pearl  ashes  mentioned  below,  not  having  been  claimed  or 
demanded  within  12  months,  I  give  this  extra  notice  to  the  holders  of  the 
weigh  notes,  (or  bills  and  receipts,)  that  unless  they  forthwith  exhibit  them 
and  pay  the  charges,  I  will  be  constrained  to  make  the  report  to  an  auc- 
tioneer, imperatively  required  from  me  officially  by  the  17th  section  of 
*'An  act  concerning  the  inspection  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,"  passed  5th  April, 
1822;  the  legislature  presuming  that  the  condition  of  a  perishable  article 
should  be  ascertained  at  least  annually,  without  the  vouchers  were  lost  or 
mislaid,  or  the  place  of  deposit  was  unknown. 

casks, 


E.  Mather, 

65   1  pearls,  insp'd 

10  May,  1826,  for  W.  Walker  &  Co 

M.  &  Perry, 

49   1     do        do 

13         "           for  W.  &  J.  James. 

A.  H.  West, 

8  1  pots        do 

26         "           for  F.  A.  Stuart. 

E.G.  Hickox 

24  1  pearls     do 

2  June 

2 

Do 

11    1  pots        do 

Do 
Do 

2  2    do         do 
1  2    do         do 

I         \[         V   for  S.  Tooker  &  Co 

H.  &  Coit, 

1  2    do         do 

2 

Do 

3  1  pearls     do 

2 

112 

C.  G.  Merrill,  48  1 
A.  Babcock,  8  1 
E.D.N.  &  Co.  32  1 

252  casks  pot  and  pearl  ashes. 

fSigned)  B.  R.  HENRY. 

Inspector  of  pot  and  pearl  ashes, 
New-York,  July  25,  1827.  No.  33  Front-st. 


do 

do 

10 

u 

for  W.  &  J.  James. 

do 

do 

20 

(( 

for  W.  Walker  &  Co, 

do 

do 

21 

(( 

for             do. 

[From  the  New- York  Morning-  Courier,  January,  1828.] 

SECOND  OFFICIAL  NOTICE. 

By  James  Seton,  as  Auctioneer. 

UNCLAIMED    ASHES. 

Agreeably  to  the  17th  section  of  ''  An  act  concerning  the  inspection  of 
pot  and  pearl  ashes,''  passed  5th  April  1822,  I  give  notice  that  Robert  R. 
Henry,  one  of  the  inspectors  of  this  city,  has  officially  reported  to  me,  that 
the  following  ashes  have  not  been  claimed  or  demanded  according  to  law  : 

E.  D.  N.&Co.  32  c'ksp'l  ashes,  inspM  21  June  1826,  for  W.Walker  &  Co. 

A.  Babcock,        8  "  "  20  "  for  do. 

J.  Sinclair,  crusted  ashes  "  28  Oct.  1824,  for  Keeler  &  Rogers. 

S.  Grover,  "  "  23  May  1825,  for  Mowatts  &  Co. 

R.  L.  Wiley,  "  "  23  June  do      for  Capt.  Schuyler. 

E.  Fairbanks,  "  "        5  Aug.  do      for  E.  Fairbanks, 

S.  Miller,  jr.  &  Co.        "  «  19      do  for  Boyd  Si  Suydam. 

R.  S.  "  «  7  Sept.  do     for  R.  Pratt,  &  Co. 

Talcott  &  Warner,        "  «  21  Nov.  do     for  Capt.  Whipple. 

M.  G.  "  "  21        do  for  —  Ostrander. 

A.  Babcock,  "  "  20  June  1826,  for  W.Walker  &  Co. 

Now,  in  conformity  with  the  duty  enjoined  on  me  by  law,  I  give  notice 
that  the  ashes  will  be  sold  at  public  auction,  on  Tuesday  11th  day  of 
March  next,  at  No.  33  Front-street,  at  12  o'clock,  and  the  neat  proceeds 
will  be  paid  into  the  treasury,  if  not  legally  claimed,  and  all  the  charges 
paid  before  the  day  of  sale. 

[Signed]  JAMES  SETON. 

Auctioneer. 
New- York,  January  21,  1828. 

The  same  notice  was  inserted  in  the  state  paper,  being  required  by  law. 

The  sale  of  the  ashes  was  postponed  until  the  22d  April  1828,  when  the 
40  casks  pearl  ashes  were  legally  claimed,  (the  original  bills  being  produc- 
ed;) but  for  the  residue,  crusted  ashes,  no  person  appearing  to  legally 
claim  them,  in  whole  or  in  part,  they  were  sold  at  public  auction,  at  No. 
33  Front-street ;  and  the  neat  proceeds  have  no  doubt  been  deposited  in 
the  treasury,  for  account  of  the  comptroller,  the  sole  trustee,  by  the  auc- 
tioneer, James  Seton,  Esq. 

Independently  of  the  ashes  advertised  by  myself  and  the  auctioneers, 
there  were  seven  bills  containing  one  hundred  and  two  casks  [102],  the 
original  bills  for  which  were  lost  or  mislaid,  but  were  claimed  by  three  con- 
spicuous houses  here  before  the  12  months  had  expired,  and  to  whom  du- 
plicates were  issued  ;  as  their  guarantees  could  not  well  be  refused,  with- 
out subjecting  myself  to  the  suspicion  of  being  governed  by  sinister  mo- 
tives ;  although  1  could  have  refused,  on  the  principle  that  I  was  answera- 
ble years  and  years  to  come,  in  case  the  original  bills  were  tendered  forde- 


113 

Tivery,  and  they  perhaps  then  bankrupt,  and  unable  to  keep  me  harmless. 
I  mention  this  to  show,  that  if  houses  so  notorious  for  care,  could  lose  or 
mislay  bills,  others  might;  and  what  strong-  temptations  I  have  had  to  re- 
fuse issuing  duplicates  and  withhold  reports,  as  they  would  have  been 
without  remedy  as  long  as  it  might  have  been  for  my  interest  to  delay  or 
neglect  reporting  them  to  any  auctioneer;  and  of  course,  I  could  have  us- 
ed more  or  less  of  the  ashes  in  the  interim,  supplying  them  by  substitutes 
when  called  for,  with  the  chance  of  being  the  owner  if  the  bills  were  lost. 

In  the  New- York  Daily  Advertiser  of  Thursday,  19th  February,  1828, 
No.  3S48j  the  following  official  notice  from  an  auctioneer  appeared : 

UNCLAIMED  ASHES. 

Agreeably  to  the  17th  section  of  an  act  regulating  the  inspection  of  pot 
and  pearl  ashes,  passed  5th  April,  1822,  I  give  notice  that  Major  Samuel 
Cooper,  one  of  the  inspectors  of  this  city,  has  officially  reported  tome  the 
following  ashes,  which  have  not  been  claimed  or  demanded  according  to 
law,  to  wit : 

HEAD-MARKS. 

T.  Dixon,  2  bbla.  2  sort  pearl  ashes. 

R.  G.  &  Co.  1  "  1  sort        do 

J.  Smith,  8  *»  2  sort         do 

M.  C.  2  «  1  sort        do 

E.  M.  &  C.  M'C.  8  "  1  sort        do 

W.  Scott,  2  "  1  sort  pot  ashes. 

N.  Ayrault,  3  «  1  sort         do 

P.  Dauchy,  8  "  1  sort         do 

E.  B.  4  "  nitrate  of  do 

Ayrault,  1  "  1  sort        do 

In  conformity  with  the  duty  enjoined  on  me  by  law,  I  give  notice  that 
,the  ashes  will  be  sold  at  public  auction,  on  Tuesday  22d  April  next,  at 
No.  29  Front-street,  at  12  o'clock;  and  the  neat  proceeds  will  be  paid  into 
the  treasury,  if  not  legally  claimed,  and  all  charges  paid,  before  the  day  of 

[Signed]  W.  W.  WHITMORE. 

Auctioneer. 

Note. — By  comparing  Mr.  Whitmore  and  Mr.  Seton's  notice,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  dates  when  inspected,  for  whom,&c.  could  not  have  been 
reported  to  Mr.  W. ;  consequently  it  cannot  be  ascertained  whether  the 
ashes  had  been  inspected  two  years  or  twenty  years,  and  how  long  the  no- 
tice had  been  withheld  from  the  auctioneers. 

It  would  have  been  better  if  the  report  to  Mr.  W.  had  been  withheld  al- 
together; for  to  my  personal  knowledge,  there  are  many  errors  and  omis- 
tions  in  it,  that  without  Major  Cooper  makes  a  supplementary  disclosure 
to  an  auctioneer,  he  cannot  report,  &c.  to  the  comptroller,  under  the  174th 
and  175th  sections,  nor  under  the  176th  section. 

The  preceding  notices  are  all  which,  on  the  most  diligent  inquiry,  I  can 
find  have  appeared  relative  to  unclaimed  ashes,  from  all  the  inspectors  in  the 
state  of  New- York,  since  the  year  1814;  when  a  small  payment,  ag  the 
neat  proceeds,  was  made  by  mistake  into  the  treasury,  under  the  12th  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  25th  February,  1813  ;  the  inspector  supposing  the  pro- 
ceeds of  previous  sales  also  made  at  auction,  for  his  coadjutor  inspector, 
had  been  deposited  there  :  but  finding  he  was  in  error,  he  retained  the 
proceeds  of  the  subsequent  sales  to  a  large  amount,  as  sub-trustee  to  the 
comptroller  ;  but  he  is  freed  from  responsibility  to  the  state,  by  the  statute 
of  limitations,  and  having  abdicated  his  office  some  years  ago. 

The  result  of  uuclaimed  ashes,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  under 


114 

the  act  of  25th  February  1813,  section  12,  which  expired  on  the  4th  April 
1822,  is,  that 

Major  Cooper  never  made  any  report  to  an  auctioneer  under  this  act, 
but  had  the  ashes  sold,  through  clerks,  foremen,  and  other  private  ag-ents. 
The  proceeds  have  not  been  paid  into  the  treasury,  for  account  of  the 
comptroller  as  sole  trustee,  but  are  held  by  him  directly  or  indirectly  in 
abeyance,  as  his  sub-trustee,  and  subject  to  his  call  to  refund,  if  not 
bestowed  as  a  largess  by  the  legislature ;  as  the  right  to  recover  is  barred 
by  the  statute  of  limitations. 

Mr.  Snow  made  one  disclosure  to  Mr.  Robert  M'Mennomy,  as  auc- 
tioneer, in  the  spring  of  1814;  the  ashes  sold;  the  proceeds  paid  over  to 
Mr.  Snow,  but  have  not  been  deposited  in  the  treasury,  because  the  head- 
marks  (as  appears  from  an  original  paper,)  could  only  be  ascertained  on 
three  casks,  all  the  others  being  effaced  by  time  and  alkali;  consequently, 
if  paid  into  the  treasury,  the  proceeds  must  from  necessity  escheat  to  the 
people.  They  were  therefore  withheld  by  Mr.  S.  as  sub-trustee,  till  own- 
ers appeared.  I  understand  there  is  a  receipt  for  proceeds,  from  a  "  con- 
venient friend  ;"  but  the  question  is,  how  did  he  shew  title  ?  The  proceeds 
of  all  subsequent  sales  made  through  private  agents,  are  held  directly  or 
indirectly  in  abeyance. 

Mr.  Bogart  made  a  disclosure  of  unclaimed  ashes,  which  remained  un- 
sold, to  Mr.  M'Mennomy,  and  actually  paid  the  proceeds  to  treasurer 
Piatt  in  1814;  but  finding  that  both  Messrs.  Snow  and  Cooper  withheld 
proceeds,  he  did  so  of  subsequent  sales,  as  sub-trustee,  &c. 

Under  the  act  of  5th  April  1822,  section  17th,  which  expired  on  30th 
April  1828, 

Major  Cooper  has  made  a  report,  dated  19th  February  1828,  to  W.  W. 
Whitmore,  the  auctioneer,  (which  I  have  given  a  copy  of;)  but  it  is  so  full 
of  errors  and  omissions,  that  it  might  as  well  have  been  withheld. 

Mr.  Bogart  has  made  no  report  to  any  auctioneer  under  this  act,  but 
has  sold  unclaimed  ashes,  both  fit  and  unfit  for  inspection,  at  private  sale, 
and  the  proceeds  are  not  in  the  treasury,  but  are  held  directly  or  indirectly 
in  abeyance,  partly  by  bis  clerk,  Mr.  Nathaniel  Conkling,  if  not  since 
refunded. 

Mr.  Snow  has  made  no  report  to  any  auctioneer  under  this  act,  although 
imperatively  directed  on  the  5th  April  1822,  to  report  all  unclaimed  ashes 
under  the  act  of  1813,  then  unreported,  and  annually  afterwards. 

Mr.  Remsen  admits  he  has  unclaimed  ashes  on  hand,  but  has  not  report- 
ed them,  because  Mr.  Snow  would  not  his.  Such  is  the  effect  of  a  bad 
precedent." 

Mr.  Dumont,  do.  do.  do. 

Mr.  Henry  made  his  first  report  to  Martin  Hoffman  &  Sons,  on  22d  Sep- 
tember 1826.  The  ashes  were  all  legally  claimed  before  the  day  ap- 
pointed for  the  sale.      Owners,  David  Stebbins,  and  George  Merle,  Esq. 

His  second  report  was  made  to  James  Seton,  Esq.  on  the  21st  January 
1828,  (see  auctioneers'  notice.)  The  40  casks  pearl  ashes  were  "Legally" 
claimed  by  Wm.  Card,  Esq.  The  residue,  crusted  ashes,  not  being 
cgally  claimed,  were  sold  22d  April  last,  and  the  neat  proceeds  have  no 
doubt  been  paid  into  the  treasury  by  the  auctioneer. 

The  third  report  I  withhold,  as  inspectors  say  the  legislature  will  allow 
all  inspectors  to  retain  all  the  unclaimed  ashes  which  have  not  been 
reported  ;  which  I  wish  to  ascertain  by  this  report.  For  if  the  comp- 
troller is  not  specially  directed  to  call  upon  inspectors  to  pay  over  the  pro- 
ceeds, I  shall  take  it  for  granted  they  are  right,  and  govern  myself 
accordingly.  I  could  give  some  heavy  items  of  proceeds  of  ashes  directly 
or  indirectly  in  abeyance,  but  think  it  most  fit  and  proper  that  each  inspec- 
tor should  make  his  own  disclosures  to  the  comptroller,  in  case  he  should 
be  directed  to  call  upon  us  sub-trustees,  to  refund  ;  and  if  so,  that  the 
call  should  be  extended  to  ex-inspectors;    and  that  whoever  did  not 


115 

report  and  account,  should  be  removed,  if  in  office,  and  if  out  of  ofiice,  be 
debarred  from  any  appointment,  until  he  did  report  and  pay. 

R.  R.  HENRY, 

Inspector  of  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes. 
New-York,  October  16,  1828. 


[No.  2.] 
IN  ASSEMBLY. 

November  4,  1828. 
Report  of  tJie  Joint  Committee  on  the  Memorial  of  Roht,  R.  Henry. 

The  joint  committee  of  the  senate  and  assembly,  to  which  was  referred 
the  memorial  and  report  of  Robert  R  Henry,  on  the  subject  of  the  inspec- 
tion of  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  respectfully  report,  That  they  have  examined 
the  documents,  and  the  statute  referred  to  in  his  memorial. 

The  practices  of  inspectors,  as  mentioned  therein,  cannot  be  considered 
evasions,  but  are  palpable  violations  of  the  statute. 

The  duties  of  inspectors  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the  sixty-fourth  section. 
If  inspectors  are  in  the  habit  of  inspecting-  ashes  without  emptying-  the 
casks,  and  without  branding-  on  the  head  the  quality,  the  remedy  is  to  be 
found,  not  in  further  laws,  but  in  the  removal  of  present  incumbents,  and 
the  appointment  of  others. 

Ashes  remaining-  in  the  inspector's  office,  are  claimed  by  the  next  friend 
of  the  inspector,  by  a  collusion  between  them.  To  avoid  this  evil,  the  me- 
morialist sug-g-ests  the  propriety  of  amending-  the  law,  by  qualifying-  the 
word  "owner"  with  the  epithet  " leg-al."  Your  committee  believe  this 
unnecessary.  The  owner  is  the  legal  owner.  Any  inspector  who  shall 
have  connived  at  and  allowed  a  spurious  claim,  because  the  statute  does 
not  say  "  legal  owner,"  has  violated  his  oath  of  office  ;  and  the  complaint 
should  be  made  rather  to  the  g-rand  jury  than  to  the  leg-islature. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  many  inspectors  are  in  possession  of  larg-e  sums 
arising  from  unclaimed  ashes.  Your  committee  believe  that  a  reasonably 
good  conscience  and  faith  would  have  found  ample  provisions  in  the  sta- 
tutes, requiring-  them  to  pay  the  money  into  the  treasury  of  the  state.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  Revised  Statutes  are  not  understood  as  requiring-  the  in- 
spectors to  account  for  any  unclaimed  ashes  previous  to  the  first  of  May 
last,  when  these  statutes  went  into  operation,  and  the  former  statutes  were 
repealed,  your  committee  have  thought  fit  to  provide  for  the  case. 

They  have  also  altered  the  size  of  barrels  in  which  pearl  ashes  are  pack- 
ed, and  required  the  comptroller  to  call  on  the  inspectors  to  account  for 
unclaimed  ashes. 

The  time  is  at  hand,  when  your  committee  believe  that  a  better  state  of 
things  will  exist  in  relation  to  the  inspection  of  ashes  ;  when  an  inspector 
general  will  occupy  the  places  of  several  independent  ones  ;  and  when  cu- 
pidity to  get  business  will  cease  to  induce  the  inspector  to  become  the  pli- 
ant tool  of  some  rogue  or  speculator. 

T.  HART,  Chairman. 


116 


JON  «  DISCRETIONARY  POWER." 

'  Extracted  from  Governor  Van  Buren's  Message,  January  6,  1829. 

„  Allow  me,  in  conclusion,  to  submit  some  observations  of  a  more  g-eneral 
character.  That  a  jealousy  of  the  exercise  of  all  deleg-ated  political  pow- 
er, ajsolicitude  to  keep  public  ag-ents  within  the  precise  limits  of  their  autho- 
rity," and  an  anxious  desire  to  see  all  public  expenditures  under  the  control 
of  a  rigid  and  scrupulous  economy,  are  indications  of  a  contracted  spirit, 
unbecoming  the  character  of  a  statesman,  is  a  sentiment  that  most  men 
at  some  period  of  their  lives  are  prone  to  entertain.  I  cannot  claim  to 
have  been  always  exempt  from  its  influence.  But  the  limited  experience 
which  it  has  been  my  fortune  to  have  in  public  affairs,  has  abundantly  sa- 
tisfied me  that  it  is  a  political  heresy  which  cannot  be  too  soon  or  too  effec- 
tually exploded. 

*'It  was  truly  said  by  one  of  my  predecessors  in  office,  who  was  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  and  efficient  civil  patriots  of  the  revolution,  that  few  cir- 
cumstances are  more  essential  to  the  duration  of  civil  liberty  and  the  well 
being  of  a  free  people,  than  that  the  departments  and  officers  of  the  go- 
vernment do,  on  the  one  hand,  exercise  on  proper  occasions,  all  the  pow- 
ers and  authorities  constitutionally  committed  to  them  ;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  that  they  do  not  exercise  on  any  occasion  powers  and  authorities 
which  are  not  constitutionally  committed  to  them.  The  enforcement  of 
these  excellent  and  saving  principles  so  far  as  they  relate  to  most  of  the 
departments  of  the  government,  rest  with  you,  and  with  the  right  is  the 
duty  to  exercise  it. 

"  It  is  also  a  truth  confirmed  by  the  experience  of  this'as  well  as  every 
other  countr}',  that  no  people  are  so  well  served  as  those  whose  laws  exact 
the  most  strict  accountability  from  their  public  servants,  and  enjoin  fruga- 
lity in  expenditure  as  a  cardinal  virtue.  Acting  upon  these  principles,  I 
do  not  hesitate  in  fulfilment  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  me  by  the  consti- 
tution, to  recommend  to  you  the  propriety  of  a  faithful  survey  of  the  exist- 
ing laws  relating  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  public  officers,  and  the  en- 
forcement, as  far  as  possible,  of  strict  conformity  to  their  provisions — of 
limiting,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  range  of  official  discretion,  always  re- 
membering as  a  general  rule,  it  can  not  be  confided  to  any  one,  without 
danger  of  abuse — of  ascertaining  whether  the  securities  now  required  from 
those  intrusted  with  public  moneys,  may  not  be  increased — of  making'  the 
instances  in  which  the  government  releases  those,  who,  forgetful  of  the 
sacred  character  of  their  trust,  wrongfully  apply  the  public  funds  to  their 
own  use,  as  rare  as  may  he  consistent  with  the  claims  of  humanity — and, 
generally,  of  compelling  a  vigilant  accountability,  and  strict  economy  in  the 
public  disbursements  through  all  their  ramifications.  There  is  no  reason 
to  apprehend  impediments  to  a  successful  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment through  unreasonable  jealousies  upon  these  points.  As  long  as  pub- 
lic sentiment,  the  great  lever  of  our  political  machine,  remains  as  now,  in- 
telligent and  patriotic,  we  need  not  fear  that  any  measure  with  which  the 
public  interest  is  essentially  connected,  will  fail  of  support." 


ON  "  LOBBY"  INFLUENCE. 

Extractrfrom  Governor  Throop's  Message  of  January  5,  1830. 
"  I  cannot  close  this  communication  without  referring  to  an  illustration 
of  the  virtuous  tendency  of  our  representative  system,  and  the  corrective 


117 

^nerg'y  of  public  opinion.  I  can  speak  of  it  without  reproach,  as  it  is  a 
part  of  the  public  history  of  our  leg-islation,  that  at  a  former  period,  indi* 
viduals  congregated  for  the  sake  of  pecuniary  gratifications,  and  forced- 
their  services  upon  those  who  had  legislative  grants  in  view,  and  endea- 
voured by  their  combined  efforts,  to  control  the  passage  of  laws.  Encou- 
raged by  their  numbers,  they  openly  boasted  of  an  influence  which  they 
did  not  possess,  and  frequently  threw  a  suspicion  upon  the  purity  of  indi- 
vidual members.  They  have  notappcai'ed  embodied  for  several  years;  and 
it  is  the  sti'oogest  proof  of  their  entire  dispersion,  that  the  whole  subject  of 
re-chartering  the  banks,  and  revising  our  monied  institutions,  was  acted 
upon  at  the  last  session  without  the  least  suspicion  of  improper  extraneous 
influence." 

NoT£;. — Some  of  the  succeeding  numbers  of  the  state  paper  I  am  told 
speak  a  different  language  on  the  subject. 


ON  "BACK  STAIRS*'  INFLUENCE. 

Extract  from  a  Letter  to  the  Hon.  Francis  Granger,  of  Jan.  1830. 
"  I  have,  since  the  receipt  of  the  governor's  message,  added  to  it  all  aftet 
the  words  "  Hints  for  additional  amendments,"  with  a  view  of  sending  it  to 
my  family  and  friends  in  Georgia,  as  ia  "  clew"  to  the  last  paragraph  in  the 
rnessage,  showing  that  if  "  lobby''  influence  was  on  the  decrease,  that 
"  back  stairs''  influence  had  "  increased,  was  increasing,  and  ought  to  be 
diminished." 


ON  "UNDUE"  INFLUENCE. 

The  affidavit  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Granger,  and  the  memorial  suppressed 
by  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  senate,  contain  much  important  matter, 
but  being  so  voluminous  they  cannot  be  published.  They  will  probably  see 
the  "  light"  on  an  inquiry  into  the  motives  for  making  the  "spurious  journal 
entries''  on  the 4th  and  6th  February,  and  6th  and  7th  April,  1829.  Until 
the  suppressed  memorial  is  forthcoming,  the  turpitude  of  the  report  made 
by  the  Hon.  Truman  Hart,  as  chairman  of  the  Joint  Committee,  cannot 
be  duly  appreciated,  but  every  effort  will  be  made  by  the  "regency"  to 
prevent  that  taking  place. 


To  the  Hon.  Virgil  Maxcy,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  Washington 

City. 

New- York,  12th  June,  1830. 
Sir, 

'  I  have  not  seen  the  law  relating  to  your  official  duties,  but  I  take  it 
for  ^-anted,  that  a  special  one  must  be  to  attend  to  all  frauds  on  the  treasury 
by  its  officers  and  others,  and  to  bring  them  to  account. 

I  enclose  you  two  documents,  (from  me)  one  relating  to  the  collector  of 
St.  Mary's,  Georgia,  mal-practices,  generally ;  the  other,  specially  to  the 
use  and  absolute  conversion  of  a  custom-house  bond,  given  by  Bilbo  & 
Havens,  as  principals,  and  Wm.  Gibson,  Esq.  as  surety,  for  $1588  12,  dat- 
ed 8th  December,  1814,  payable  the  8th  September  following,  used  by 
the  collector  on  the  10th  July,'  1815,  to  purchase  negroes  from  the  suKj- 


118 

ly,lVIr.  Gibson,  which  fact  he  testifies  to  twice  (in  March  1822  and  Novem- 
ber or  December,  1823)  as  you  will  find  among-  the  mass  of  testimony  tak- 
en by  the  government  agent,  Richard  W.  Habersham,  Esq.,  all  which 
testimony  it  was  found  necessary  to  suppress  when  it  reached  Washing- 
ton, as  it  made  such  unpleasant  disclosures  relative  to  the  slave  trade  at 
St.  Mary's,  and  the  mode  and  manner  of  carrying  it  on. 

My  object  has  been  to  save  you  all  the  trouble  of  research,  excepting* 
when  m}'  averments  are  doubted,  which,  by  the  by,  a  reference  to  the  sup- 
pressed testimony  will  quickly  dissipate,  and  will  convince  you  that  I  ana 
literally  a  matter-of-fact  man. 

The  proof  of  absolute  conversion  is  in  a  certificate  from  the  secretary  of 
the  treasury,  dated  10th  of  November,  1821,  and  the  memorandum  in  the 
handwriting  of  one  of  his  clerks,  that  the  bond  was  unpaid  on  that  day, 
and  which  I  aver  it  is  at  the  present  moment ;  but  if  paid  subsequently  to 
the  10th  November,  1821,  so  much  the  better  for  my  purposes  ;  and  pro- 
vided further,  that  the  six  years  and  four  months'  interest  was  not  also  paid. 
I  am  ready  to  produce  the  original  certificates  whenever  called  on. 

Although  the  treasury  has  not  a  list  of  the  bonds  transferred  by  Bessent'& 
administrators,  on  the  7th  January,  1815,  to  Clark,  shgwing  the  names  of 
principals,  sureties,  dates,  and  amount,  yet  I  have  a  list  now  in  my  posses- 
sion of  the  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $150,859  45  ;  shewing,  also,  whether 
paid  to  Clark  in  treasury  notes,  cash,  when,  &c.  which  I  am  ready  to  pro- 
duce if  called  to  Washington,  but  not  otherwise. 

Will  you  have  the  goodness,  on  receipt  of  this,  to  inform  me  whether 
you  will  have  any  occasion  for  me  personally  at  Washington  with  the  list 
of  bonds  in  my  possession ;  if  not,  1  wish  to  get  employment  here  that  will 
give  me  a  support  until  the  meeting  of  congress.  1  would  take  it  as  a  spe- 
cial favour  if  you  will  give  me  an  immediate  answer,  when  I  shall  be  able 
to  regulate  myself  accordingly.     I  am,  very  respectfully, 

Sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  R.  HENRY. 

Note. — I  will  to-morrow  send  you  copies  of  my  letter  to  the  president, 
of  the  30th  April,  and  to  the  Hon.  Edw.  Livingston,  of  the  12th  May  last, 
as  they  contain  much  matter  which  you  should  know  in  order  to  act  under- 
standingly  in  this  affair,  which  I  wish  you  to  scan  critically,  and  take  no- 
thing from  me  as  granted,  as  I  make  it  a  rule  always  to  be  able  to  advance 
and  not  recede.  I  can  pick  out  at  Washington  what  will  substantially  sup- 
port my  averments  with  what  I  have  in  possession. 


Certificate  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  10  Nov.  1821. 

"  1  have  caused  an  examination  of  the  accounts  of  A.  Clark,  the  col- 
lector, to  be  made,  and  the  enclosed  memorandum  shews  that  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether  the  bond  of  Bilbo  came  into  his  hands.  If  it  formed  a  part  of 
the  sum  transferred  to  him,  it  has  not  been  accounted  for  by  him,  as  it  does 
not  appear  upon  the  list  of  bonds  in  suit."  ^ 


Enclosed  Memorandum, 

"  Abraham  Bessent's  account  was  settled  by  his  administrators  on  7th  of 
J^inuary,  1815,  and  the  uncollected  bonds  transferred  to  Archibald  Clark, 
hU  successor  in  office,  to  the  amount  of  ^179,372  32,  credited  by  Clark, 
but  no  list  was  furnished  by  the  administrators  of  Bessent,  showing  Ihe 


119 

si;imes  of  principals  and  sureties,  the  dates  and  amount  of  the  bonds  com- 
posing the  ahove  sura.  It  is  therefore  impossihlo  to  ascertain  whether  Clark 
ever  received  a  bond  of  JBilbo  from  Bessent.  In  the  return  of  bonds  by 
Clark,  the  name  of  Bilbo  does  not  appear,  neither  is  it  in  the  list  of  bonds 
in  suit  rendered  by  the  district  attorney  of  Georgia." 


Testimony  of  Judge  Gibson,  taken  at  St.  Mary^s,  Georgia,  on  the 
Ibth  March,  1822,  hy  Richard  W.  Habersham,  Esq,  the  District 
Attorney,  specially  appointed. 

Under  15th  Specification  he  testifies.  "  On  the  lOth  July,  1815,  I  sold  to 
Major  Clark  my  own  negroes  to  the  amount  of  ^3000.  There  was  a  bond 
due  the  8th  of  September  following  (Bilbo)  at  the  custom-house,  in  which 
I  was  security  for  gl588  12,  and  I  gave  him  (Clark)  credit  for  the  remain- 
ing ^141 1  88,  till  the  1st  of  January  following,  not  conceiving  it  would  be 
injurious  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  deposit  property  (ne- 
groes) to  such  an  amount,  and  receive  payment  of  little  more  than  half  by 
a  bond  not  due  for  nearly  two  months  afterwards." 


Negro  Inspectors. 

*'  Dr.  Whipple  Aldridge  being  produced,  the  collector  stated  it  was  un- 
necessary to  proceed  to  examine  with  regard  to  William  Clark  and  Gus- 
tavus  Hall,  as  he  admitted  they  were  slaves  and  black  men." 

Refertothe  National  Calendar  from  1818  to  1822,  for  the  return  of  the 
negroes  as  inspectors.  Also^  to  Col.  Gardner's  New-York  Patriot  of  the 
28th  July,  1823.  Also,  the  Albany  Daily  Advertiser  of  Oct,  30  and  31, 
1823.  The  vouchers  on  file  with  the  Register  of  the  treasury  ;  and  the 
letters  to  President  Jackson,  dated  the  Isf,  2d,  and  7th  of  July,  29th  Oct. 
16th  February,  2d  March,  and  30lh  April  last ;  and  to  the  Hon.  Edward 
Livingston,  of  the  12th  of  May  last  ;  also  thejlistof  documentary  evidence 
furnished  the  solicitor  of  the  treasury  on  21st  June  last. 


To  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

New-York,  28th  July,  1830. 
Sir, 

On  Saturday  evening  I  called  at  the  post  office  for  letters,  was  told 
there  was  none  for  me,  but  the  clerk  remarked  there  was  one  for  "  H.  H. 
Henry,"  and  if  I  expected  any  communication  from  the  treasury  depart- 
ment, it  was  probably  intended  for  me.  I  told  him  I  had  been  anxiously 
looking  for  a  letter  for  many  weeks  past  from  you,  and  it  was  handed  to  me 
of  course,  and  proved  to  be  yours  of  the  2d  inst. 

As  the  letter  is  short  and  of  great  consequence  under  existing  circum- 
stances, I  will  give  a  copy  of  it  for  the  information  of  friends  and  also  the 
public,  who  will  probably  have  it  with  suppressed  documents  as  a  supple- 
ment to  a  letter  from  me  to  the  chamber  of  commerce  on  the  subject  of 
abuse  of  "  discretionary  power,  (on  the  part  of  "  state"  government  officers 
in  my  case)  showing  the  truth  of  governor  Van  Buren's  axiom  in  his  mes- 
sage of  6th  January,  1829,  journals  of  the  assembly,  page  17,  that  such 
powers  "  cannot  be  confided  to  any  one  without  abuse."    The  auxiliary 


120 

help  which  the  multiplied  abuses  of  "  discretionary  power'*  on  the  part  of 
the  officers  of  the  "general"  g-overnment  (no  where  granted  even  construc- 
tively) will  be  to  my  hypothesis,  is  too  apparent  to  require  any  enumeration, 
as  you  will  perceive  however  from  what  follows. 


Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Washington,  July  2d,  1830. 
Sir, 

Your  several  communications  have  been  received.  Understanding 
that  the  matters  to  which  they  refer  have  long  since  been  decided  on  by  the 
treasury  department,  I  have  not  opened  them,  but  have  the  honor  to  inform 
you  that  the  papers  you  have  forwarded  to  me  will,  in  compliance  with  your 
wishes,  be  placed  on  file  in  this  office.     I  am,  very  respectfully, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 
V.  MAXCY, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 
To  H.  H.  Henry,  Esq.  New-York. 

Note. — As  the  remainder  of  my  letter  is  too  long  to  publish  entire,  the 
following  extracts  are   subjoined: — 

"  Being  a  plain  "matter-of-fact  man,"  it  appears  to  me  "passing  strange" 
that  the  contents  of  papers  wrapped  up  in  thick  "foolscap"  paper  and 
sealed  could  be  got  at  without  "opening"  some  one  of  the  packages  at  least, 
but  that  perhaps  may  be  owing  to  the  dulness  of  my  comprehension,  al- 
though I  have  heard  and  read  of  men  whose  perceptive  faculties  were  so 
intuitively  great  that  they  almost  appeared  superhuman.  I  have  always 
understood,  sir,  that  your  intellectual  powers  were  acute  in  the  extreme, 
and  perhaps  you  may  have  "  guessed"  at  the  contents  of  the  packages  with- 
out "  opening''  the  "  seals''  of  either  of  them,  although  to  minds  formed  in 
the  "  common  mould,"  the  operation  is  incomprehensible.  The  days  of  mi- 
racles are  said  to  be  past,  but  it  appears  in  this  case  to  be  an  erroneous 
opinion." 

"  I  cannot  help  expressing  my  astonishment  that  Secretary  Ingham,  a 
personal  friend  of  Mr.  Crawford,  and  you  a  personal  friend  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren  should,  to  screen  a  knavish  collector,  jeopardize  your  several  friends, 
for  either  Mr.  Crawford  or  Mr.  Van  Buren's  character  for  veracity  at  least, 
must  inevitably  fall  a  sacrifice  on  an  investigation  of  the  journalsof  the  senate 
which  iheopponenlsof  Mr.  V.  B.  even  in  that  body  (not  implicated  in  "what 
has  been  done")  will  not  shed  many  "salt  tears"  if  constrained  by  a  "sense  of 
duty,  honour,  and  conscience,''  to  make.  As  their  personal  friend,  there- 
fore, I  would  suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  reviewing  what  has  been  "  de- 
cided'' at  the  treasury  in  time  by  "  opening"  the  "  sealed  packages,"  and 
reading  them  before  the  "sovereign  people,"  and  their  representatives  get 
hold  of  them  ;  for  if  so,  the  "  devil  will  be  to  pay  among  the  fiddlers,  whe- 
ther the  piper  is  paid  or  not." 

"  From  present  appearances,  I  opine  Judge  Peck  will  not  stand  alone, 
in  the  senate  chamber  next  winter,  if  this  business  is  inquired  into,  as 
"  trifling  events"  may  even  lead  to  such  "  important  results"  as  impeach- 
ment, and  all  to  accrue  from  a  solitary  individual  saying  in  the  petty  vil- 
lage of  St.  Mary's,  Georgia — that  the  roll  or  register  of  slaves  (now  in 
Washington)  admitted  to  entry  at  the  custom  house,  was  forbidden  by  con- 
stitution and  law.  That  the  permission  of  the  deputy  collector  to  alter  an 
entry  on  the  roll  to  defeat  a  seizure  (for  a  bribe  in  money)  was  both  frau- 
dulent and  criminal.  That  drawing  money  from  the  treasury  in  vouchers 
proved  to  be  from  negroes,  was  fraudulent  ia  the  extreme,  as  it  was  literally 


121 

olDtaining  money  by  false  pretences,  &c.,  see  charges  ;  and  when  the  testi- 
mony (twice  taken  by  Mr.  Habersham)  is  received  at  Washington,  it  is  "de- 
cided"that  it  must  be  "  suppressed,"  which  is  accordingly  done  by  Secretary 
Crawford.  See  the  names  of  witnesses  (below)  whose  testimony  was  sup- 
pressed, but  if  not,  what  a  situation  senator  Van  Buren  and  others  are  in 
■who  gave  their  assent  to  the  nominations;  therefore,  whether  Mr.  Craw- 
ford or  Mr.  Van  Buren  is  right,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment  to  me,  as  either 
will  answer  my  purposes.'' 

"The  entire  testimony  of  the  following  persons  taken  by  Rich'd.  W.  Ha- 
bersham, Esq.  district  attorney  and  government  agent,  specially  employed 
to  investigate  the  illicit  introduction  of  slaves  into  the  St.  Mary's  district, 
and  other  malpractices  of  the  collector,  (under  thirteen  charges  and  eight- 
een specifications)  filed  by  Mr.  Habersham  at  Washington,  in  April,  1822, 
andDecem.  1823,  totally  suppressedby  Secretary  Crawford  in  consequence, 
it  is  said,  of  a  threat  of  the  collector,  that  if  not  supported  against  me,  he 
would  discover  who  were  General  Mitchell's  "  sleeping  partners,"  (from 
Washington  to  Alabama)  in  consequence  of  which  an  "  hermetical''  seal 
was  put  upon  the  testimony  (furnished  by  me  through  Mr.  Habersham)  and 
will  be  continued  until  taken  off  by  congress. 

John  Boog,  Daniel  Mickler,  William  Gibson,  John  Sleight,Whipple  AI- 
dridge,  Edward  J.  Sherman,  Herman  Courter,  Bassil  Allen,  M.  H.  Hub- 
bard, Lewis  Levy,  Z.  Kingsley,  Daniel  Gracie,  John  Stotesbury,  Robert 
Church,  Isaac  Crews,  J.  N.  Chappie,  Henry  Sadler,  Edmund  Richardson, 
John  H.  M'c  Intosh,  E.  Clark,  R.  L.  Halcombe,  George  Long,  Joshua 
Hickman,  Thos.  H.  Miller,  John  Chevalier,  Ira  Sibley,  Catherine  Fitz- 
gerald, John  Floyd,  Samuel  Clark,  Belton  A.  Copp,  Lewis  Defoure,  and 
others,  whose  names  are  not  recollected  by  me." 

To  give  you,  sir,  (as  you  have  not  "  opened"  the  "  papers")  and  the  pub- 
lic some  little  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  testimony  suppressed  by  the  treasu- 
ry department,  I  will  select  what  follows,  but  will  not  mention  names  of 
witnesses,  only  what  has  been  sworn  to,  the  accuracy  of  which  you  can 
ascertain  from  the  originals  in  the  hands  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  treasury, 
with  whom  you  have  consulted  as  to  the  suppression  of  the  documents  sent 
you,  as  the  course  you  have  taken  is  in  fact  and  truth  nothing  less,  as  they 
only  did  the  same  at  the  treasury,  (put  them  on  file)  as  I  do  not  suppose  they 
yazood  them  as  they  came  to  hand  from  Mr.  Habersham  and  me. 

''  That  he  did  bring  from  Amelia  Island  (Spanish  territory)  slaves,  which 
were  seized  and  released,  but  he  could  not  say  by  whose  order  !  !  !  ! 

"  That  he  introduced  a  number  of  slaves,  who  were  seized — that  in  the 
public  market  he  threatened  to  complain  of  others — that  they  were  releas- 
ed to  him,  but  he  could  not  tell  whether  by  order  of  the  collector  or  in  con- 
sequence of  the  threat !  !  !  ! 

"  That  he  communicated  his  wish  of  bringing  over  his  negroes  to  Major 
Clark  by  letter,  but  he  does  not  recollect  whether  he  made  any  personal 
entry  of  any  negroes  on  the  roll." 

"  Thousands  were  introduced  in  this  way  under  the  Roll,  and  to  such  an 
extent  that  the  deputy  collector  Halcombe  remonstrated,  but  (ways  and 
means)  were  found  to  silence  him.  I  have  no  doubt  the  same  game  has 
been  played  ever  since  I  left  St.  Mary's  down  to  this  day.  What  is  to  prevent 
it  ?     Nothing.'' 

"  Since  I  have  reflected  upon  your  conduct,  as  an  "  ex-parte  judge  or  ar- 
bitrator," I  look  upon  my  possession  of  your  letter  as  a  "special  providence" 
as  it  shows  "  undue  influence"  so  conclusively  ;  and  I  therefore  return  you 
my  thanks,  for  it  as  an  additional  weapon  for  offensive  and  defensive  opera- 
tions unwisely  furnished  me  by  my  opponents  as  merely  by  sending  it  to 
the  houses,  and  asking  them  to  call  for  the  ;"  sealed  papers,"  bring  up  the 
whole  question  at  once,  as  the  list  of  suppressed  documents  furnished  you 
mill  show  their  number,  dates,  &c." 


122 


TO  THE  SOLICITOR  OF  THE  TREASURY. 

New-York,  August  6th,  18S0. 
Sir, 

I  am  favored  with  yours  of  2d  inst.  acknowledging-  the  receipt  of 
mine  of  28th  ult.  As  it  will  save  me  the  exhibition  of  the  original  to 
friends,  <^c.  and  is  short,  I  will  copy  your  letter  for  their  information. 

Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
2d  August,  1830. 
Sir, 

Your  communication  of  the  28th  ult.  has  just  been  received.  The 
only  object  of  this  letter  is  to  say,  that  you  have  entirely  misunderstood  my 
letter  to  you,  in  supposing  I  said  I  had  not  opened  your  letters  or  commu- 
nications. My  obvious  meaning,  if  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  re-exa- 
mine the  phraseology  of  my  letter,  is  that  I  have  not  opened  matters, 
long  since  decided  at  the  treasury  department,  to  which  your  communica- 
tions  refer.  I  am,  sir,  your  most  obH.  serv't. 

V.  MAXCY, 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 
To  R.  R.  Henry,  Esq.  New- York. 

Consequently,  that  you  are  aware  of  the  contents  of  my  communications 
of  12th,  13th  and  21st  June,  and  the  8th  and  28th  ult.  but  deeming  the  de- 
cision of  the  treasury  final,  you  will  not  inquire  even  whether  Bilbo's  bond 
is  still  unpaid,  maugre  secretary  Crawford's  certificate  of  10th  November, 
1821,  that  it.  was  not  paid  on  that  day,  the  testimony  of  judge  Gibson, 
(taken  by  the  government  agent,  Mr.  Habersham,  in  March,  1822,  and 
December,  1823,)  that  he  received  Bilbo's  custom-house  bond  on  lOth  July, 
1815,  from  the  collector,  in  part  payment  for  negroes,  two  months  before 
maturity,  putting  Mr.  Bilbo's  testimony,  (which  has  or  may  be  obtained,  as 
he  is  living  in  Savannah,)  and  all  the  other  evidence  out  of  the  question 
relative  to  other  mal-practices.  The  same  kind  of  testimony  sent  on  from 
this  port  against  the  collector  would  cause  his  instant  removal. 

The  question  whether  your  decision  is  a  correct  one  relative  to  the  use  and 
absolute  conversion  of  Bilbo's  bond,  can  be  determined  by  a  simple  appeal 
to  congress,  when  incidentally  the  other  matters  will  come  under  review, 
and  whether  the  secretary  of  the  treasury  was  deterred  from  doing  his  duty 
by  threats  of  the  collector  of  St.  Marys,  as  detailed  in  mine  of  28th  ult. 
The  very  silence  of  the  secretary  and  his'friends  to  the  suggestions  relative 
to  the  suppression  of  the  lettters  in  Mitchell's  case  and  the  testimony, 
taken  by  Mr.  Habersham  in  1822  and  1823,  at  St.  Marys,  will  be  prima 
facie  evidence  if  the  truth  of  the  allegations,  putting  the  journals  of  tho 
Senate  and  the  "  cZa-s/iin^-"  between  his  and  Mr  Van  Buren's  written 
declarations  out  of  the  question.  One  or  the  other  of  whom  must  be  in 
error,  which  a  congressional  inquiry  will  show. 

As  the  matter  now  stands,  we  are  fairly  at  issue.  Secretary  Crawford 
certifies  in  writing,  on  lOth  November,  182 J,  six  years  and  four  months 
after  Bilbo's  bond  was  used,  that  it  was  unpaid,  maugre  which  certificate 
(also  one  from  his  clerk  and  judge  Gibson's  testimony,)  you  plead  a  deci- 
sion of  this  very  secretary  in  bar  of  an  inquiry  into  the  truth  of  his  own 
written  declaration.  This  may  be  right,  but  it  is  past  my  comprehension, 
and,  therefore,  if  collector  Clark  is  continued  in  office,  I  must  ask  con- 
gress to  settle  the  moot  point,  and  whether  an  official  assurance  is  of 
any  validity  in  this  instance,  and  in  one  dated  1st  September,  1823,  relative 
to  the  testimony  taken  on  the  second  examination. 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  ob't.  serv't. 

R.  R.  HENRY. 


123 

NoTi. — The  following  paragraphs  are  selected  from  the  postscript  to  the 
letter. 

*'You  will  clearly  see,  sir,  that  this  and  my  former  communications  to  you 
are  intended  for  other  eyes  than  your  own  ;  indeed  I  have  told  you  that  be- 
fore, and  that  they  will  be  used  to  open  collector  Clark's  case,  althoug-h 
"  decided"  by  the  treasury  department,  consequently  the  more  corrupt 
I  can,  by  cases  in  point,  (independently  of  the  St.  Marys  case,)  make  the 
"decisions"  of  the  "constituted  authorities''  appear  to  the  public,  the 
greater  my  chance  for  ultimate  justice  in  the  St.  Marys   case  ;  I  have, 

therefore,  named  — and 's  cases,  and  if  necessary  can  give 

more,  (both  under  the  state  and  general  governments,)  as  you  will  find  by 
a  reference  to  the  letters  to  president  Jackson,which  have  been  suppressed 
by  "  undue  influence,^'  as  they  contained  some  transactions,  (both  at  Wash- 
ington and  Albany,)  of  the  most  reprehensible  nature,  affecting  persons  in 
power,  as  the  journals  of  the  houses  in  both  places  will  show,  which,  al- 
though smothered  for  a  time,  will,  through  party  feeling,  in  all  probability 
see  the  light  before  long,  if  the  material  suits  their  purposes,  if  so  it  will  be 
perfectly  fair  to  avail  myself  of  such  fortuitous  circumstances  to  open  in- 
quiry." 

"It  strikes  me,  sir,  that  the  course  you  have  adopted  in  relation  to  the  St. 
Marys  case  will  not  bear  examination.  I  refer  you  to  an  njjicial  letter 
from  secretary  Crawford,  of  lOth  November,  1821,  (on  record  no  doubt  in 
his  office,)  that  on  that  day  Bilbo's  bond  was  unpaid,  but  to  a  request  of 
mine,  that  you  would  ascertain  whether  it  was  not  still  unpaid,  you  plead  a 
decision  of  somebody  in  bar  of  even  the  inquiry.  The  mere  use  for  six 
days  of  a  custom  house  bond  would  cause  collector  Swartwout's  instant  re- 
moval ;  whereas  secretary  Crawford  certifies  in  writing  to  the  use  of  Bil- 
bo's bond  for  two  thousand  three  hundred  and  twelve  days,  (six  years  and 
four  months,)  which  bond  I  aver  is  still  unpaid,  as  the  treasury  books  will 
shew ;  but  you  refuse  to  ask  the  question,  as  it  would  open  inquiry  into 
other  matters,  and,  therefore,  an  hermetical  seal  is  put  upon  the  whole : 
perhaps  copies  of  the  letters  to  you  sent  on  to  congress  may  have  the  tenden- 
cy to  remove  the  "  Taboo,"  in  case  the  publication  in  a  pamphlet  form  does 
not  take  place  before  they  meet,  which  nothing  but  the  want  of  funds  will 
prevent." 

To  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.  R.  R.  HENRY. 


New- York,  14th  August,  1830. 

Sir, 

I  wrote  you  on  the  6th  inst.  per  mail,  in  answer  to  your  favor  of  £d 
inst.  and  to  which  I  refer  for  particulars. 

I  now,  sir,  bring  specially  to  your  official  knowledge  the  fact,  that  the 
United  States  revenue  boat,  General  Gaines,  of  St.  Marys,  Georgia,  Capt. 
John  Stotesbury,  master,  was  hired  by  the  collector  of  that  district  to 
Capt.  Ramage,  of  the  United  States  navy,  (between  15th  September,  1822, 
and  the  8th  May,  1823,)  as  a  tender,  or  pilot  boat,  whilst  Capt.  Ramage 
was  employed  in  surveying  that  port,  which  charge  I  predicate  in  the  fol- 
lowing certificate  from  the^Rev.  C.  Felch,  the  scientific  gentleman  employ- 
ed on  that  occasion,  and  as  collateral  evidence  I  appeal  to  the  vouchers 
filed  by  Capt.  Ramage,  (who  I  undersood  from  Mr.  F.  acted  as  purser,) 
which  I  have  reason  to  believe  will  substantiate  the  truth  of  his  certificate, 
in  the  words  and  figures  following,  the  original  of  which  I  stand  ready  to 
produce  whenever  called  for. 

"  On  the  15th  September,  1822,  I  applied  to  Archibald  Clark,  Esq. 
collector  of  customs  at  St.  Marys,  for  the  use  of  the  revenue  boat.  Captain 
John  Stotesbury,  for  her  assistance  in  the  survey  of  the  harbour,  which  re- 
quest was  granted,  and  she  qootinued  to  assist  us  until  about  the  0th  May, 


124 

1S23»  wliile  in  actual  service  Capt.  Stotesbury  received  from  Capt.  Ram-' 
age  I  believe  $1,50  to  ^2  per  day,  as  pilot. 

(Signed)  C.  FELCH." 

New- York,  March  6,  1826. 

As  my  house  overlooked  the  bay,  the  vessels  entering  or  leaving  the 
harbour  were  under  view,  consequently  I  saw  the  revenue  boat  frequently 
going  and  returning  from  llic  bar;  but  as  Capt.  Stotesbury  was  a  branch 
pilot,  I  supposed  the  General  Gaines,  moving  to  and  fro  in  the  harbour,  that 
Capt.  S.  was  then  acting  in  that  capacity,  and  as  he  was  not  at  a  cent  of 
expense  for  boat  and  hands,  he  had  the  absolute  monopoly  of  the  business, 
as  no  other  pilot  could  compete  with  him  at  all,  he  having  also  the  navy 
and  treasury  patronage,  as  U.  S.  paid  for  all ;  but  I  had  no  idea  Capt.  S. 
was  then  acting  as  a  tender  to  the  Porpoise  and  was  in  the  pay  of  the  navy 
department. 

When  Mr.  Felch  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  me  here,  (nearly  three 
years  after  I  left  St.  Marys,)  I  could  hardly  believe  him  serious  until  he 
gave  me  the  facts  in  writing,  TVhcn  he  laughed  heartily  at  "  Uncle  Sam's" 
revenue  boat  being  hired  to  "  Uncle  Sam,"  (with  her  entire  crew,)  by  the 
collector  when  at  Washington,  they  no  doubt  thought,  (from  Mr.  Clark's 
pay  rolls,  &c.)  that  the  boat  and  crew  were  vigilantly  employed  in  their  le- 
gitimate vocation,  preventing  smuggling,  and  he  had  no  doubt  the  collec- 
tor and  captain  divided  the  spoil  between  them. 

After  ascertaining  at  the  navy  ofl5ce  that  there  are  vouchers  from  Capt.- 
Stotesbury,  (between  15th  September,  1822,  and  8th  May,  1823,)  and  for 
what  services  I  take  it  for  granted  you  will  then  inquire  of  the  first  comp- 
troller, whether  there  are  not  vouchers  also  on  file  in  his  ofltice,  from 
Capt.  Stotesbury  (within  the  same  period,)  for  pay  and  rations,  as  master, 
when  if  you  find  he  has  been  paid,  in  the  double  capacity  of  master  of  the 
revenue  boat,  General  Gaines,  and  master  of  the  tender,  alias  pilot  boat 
Gen.  Gaines,  by  U.  S.  you  will,  1  presume,  find  yourself  constrained  by  a 
sense  of  "  duty,  honor  and  conscience,''  to  make  the  fraud  known  to  the 
President  and  the  Secretary  of  the  treasury  instantly,  and  to  Congress  in 
your  report,  (when  they  meet,)  that  they  may  guard  by  law  against  sucb 
•<  improper,  incorrect  and  indiscreet"  proceedings  in  future. 

I  would  also  suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  investigating  Capt.  Rart;3ge'» 
vouchers  to  ascertain  whether  the  crew  of  the  revenue  boat,  alias  the  ten- 
der, alias  the  pilot  boat  of  the  Porpoise,  (Gustavus  Hall,  Wm.  and  Alexan- 
der Clark,  the  slaves  of  the  collector,  and  Capt.  Stotesbury,)  were  not  also 
paid  for  their  services,  and  if  so,  whether  vouchers  signed  with  the  negro's 
X  (instead  of  their  master's,)  was  given  to  Capt.  Ramage,  as  was  done  be- 
tween 1818  and  1822.  See  pay  roll,  &c.  in  register's  office.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  inquiry  in  this  case  is  not  barred  bya^'-  decision"*'  of  the  ^'-  trea- 
sury department.''' 

This,  sir,  I  presume  you  will  admit  to  be  a  case  of  the  most  fraudulenW 
description,  provided  you  find  that  Capt.   Stotesbury,  (with  the  consent  g/L 
the  collector,)  h^s  been  paid  in  a  double  capacity  by  U.  S.   as  master  ot\ 
their  own  boat,  which  I  have  little  doubt  of,  as  the  motto  of  both  master  and 
man,  at  St.  Marys,  (as  elsewhere,)  is  that,   "  tlie  public  is  a  goose.,  and  he 
that  will  not  pluck  a  feather  when  opportunity  offers^  is  a  fool ;''  but  per- 
haps this  act  of  the  collector  (as  others  have  been,)  will  be  deemed  a  "  ve- 
nial olfence ;"  such  transactions  being  so  common,  of  which  I  have  given  you 
some  cases  in  point  in  my  letters,  particularly  in  my  last,  of  the  6th  inst. 
relative  to  the  mode  and  manner  of  retaining  and  obtaining  office,  from 
Messrs.  C.  and  M.  by  " //treats,"  which,  and  other  letters  to  you,  I  opine 
some  members  of  congress  will  have  the  curiosity  to  call  for  next  session,  as 
they  contain  *'  secrets  worth  knowing." 

I  am,  Sir,  your  most  obedient  servant,  R.  R.  HENRY. 

The  Hon.  Virgil  Maxcy,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  Washington  Cit} , 


